D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-1-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagina, in the capacity as Election Tribunal under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking relief for its quashing. ( 2 ) THE petitioners election as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Rafayatpur Khulas, District Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the Gaon Sabha) was challenged by one Sri Sarad Kumar Gahlot by means of an election petition presented before the respondent No. 1 (numbered as Election Petition No. 63 of 1988 ). The Election Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the issues. Before the issues could be decided the election petitioner moved an application on 15-7-1988 for inspection of ballot papers, which was resisted by the respondent No. 1 in the election petition, the returned candidate. The election petitioner on 13-4-1988 moved another application for inspection/recounting of ballot papers, which, in spite of resistence by the respondent No. 1 in election petition, was allowed on 24-1-1991 and the following order was passed :- "as the evidence of both the parties has been closed, hence inspection is allowed". This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as the learned standing counsel. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order directing inspection of ballot papers is not in accordance with law and no reasons have been spelt out regarding satisfaction of the requirement of law. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 (the election petitioner) failed to supply adequate material fact on which the inspection of ballot papers was claimed. ( 5 ) SO far as the principle relating to inspection of ballot papers is concerned, it is no longer res integra. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of the Supreme Court and one of the cases is Bhabhi v. Shree Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 . ( 5 ) SO far as the principle relating to inspection of ballot papers is concerned, it is no longer res integra. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of the Supreme Court and one of the cases is Bhabhi v. Shree Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 . In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the requirement for granting inspection of ballot papers and the same are as enumerated hereunder :-" (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials. " ( 6 ) THE impugned order by which the inspection of ballot papers has been allowed, does not spell out any reason laying down justification for grant of relief of inspection of ballot papers. It is settled position of law that the inspection of ballot papers cannot be allowed as a routine course or as of right for allowing the election petitioner to fish out the material by making roving enquiry. In the present case, the order does not disclose as to what was the material and how the Tribunal arrived at the satisfaction for granting relief of inspection of ballot papers without discussing merits and de-merits of the evidence as may have been led by the parties. In the present case, the order does not disclose as to what was the material and how the Tribunal arrived at the satisfaction for granting relief of inspection of ballot papers without discussing merits and de-merits of the evidence as may have been led by the parties. Thus, so far as the merit of the impugned order is concerned, the order is ex facie cryptic and cannot be allowed to be sustained. It is not necessary to dilate on the other cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the impugned order is found to be defective and cryptic in nature, spell out no reason and not discussing the merits and demerits of the evidence of the parties satisfying the requirement of law regarding inspection of ballot papers. ( 7 ) THE other question advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the requirement of adequate statement of material fact. Since the impugned order is held to be invalid, it is not necessary to dilate on this point and as such I express no opinion. It is for the parties to agitate their grievances before the Election Tribunal. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order dated 24-1-1991 passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 63 of 1988 is quashed and the Election Tribunal is directed to deal with the matter in accordance with law after considering the merits and de-merits of the evidence, as may have been led by the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .