(1) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant, Charan Dass challenging the correctness of the judgment and order made by the Punjab and Haryana High court in Election Petition No. 5 of 1991. The appellant contested his election as a candidate from Kaithal Assembly Constituency Seat No. 25 on behalf of Haryana Vikas Party. He was opposed by the first respondent, who contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress-1. While appellant polled 16.735 votes, the respondent got 17,190 votes.. The appellant lost his election by a margin of 437 votes. (2) THEREAFTER, the appellant filed the Election Petition under S. 80. 80-A and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that the election of the first respondent be set aside on the ground of misconduct by means of wrongful counting and recount be ordered in the interests of justice, fair play and good conscience and to declare the appellant as having besoms successful from the said Assembly Seat. The learned Judge of the High court after elaborately discussing the averments made in the election petition and the oral evidence led by the parties hue. found as follows. "IT will be seen, therefore, that what stands out so prominently on a reading of the petition, are the vague and general allegations made of votes cast in favour of the petitioner, first being included in the votes of the returned candidate and when objection is raised thereto, such votes being declared invalid. Admittedly, no record or notes of any such rejected votes was ever kept...." (3) BEFORE proceeding further, a glaring omission in the petition may be noticed here, namely, that it has not been alleged that the result of the election has been materially affected by all or any of the alleged irregularities during counting. Seen in this context, the averments with regard to polling booth 43-A even if taken to be correct do not warrant setting aside of the election of the successful candidate. Seen in this context, the averments with regard to polling booth 43-A even if taken to be correct do not warrant setting aside of the election of the successful candidate. After hearing the learned counsel, the learned Judge rejected the election petition observing that : "LACK of material facts and particulars to justify an order for recount thus stands writ large and this being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the petition discloses no cause of action." (4) MR Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assails the above findings contending that the counting of votes did not take place in the manner as provided in Rule 56 of Conduct of Election Rules and lot of irregularities were committed at the time of counting and that the High court ought to have granted an inspection of the ballot papers in order to decide the dispute for doing complete justice between the parties. He further contends that the counting agents of the appellant were kept away from the counting tables and it was, therefore, not possible for the counting agents to supervise the counting and note down the invalid ballot papers. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on three rulings of this court, namely : (1 Bhim Sen v. Gopali (2 Shradha Devi (Km) v. Krishna Chandra Pant and (3 N.E. Hero v. Leander Tiru. (5) IN Order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we went through the election petition very carefully but we do not find the required concise statement of material facts demanding the grant of inspection of the votes or recount as prayed for by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has resisted the above contention relying on the decision of this court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwa wherein it has been held : "... that an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. ... To establish a case so pleaded. an order fur inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception,. ... To establish a case so pleaded. an order fur inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception,. refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." (6) WE after having gone through the entire material are satisfied that the High court was justified in holding that the allegations were very vague and as such the contention raised by the appellant cannot be entertained. In fact, the Constitution bench in Ram Sewak Yadav held that : "WE do not think that Bhim Sen case lays down any general principle that a party is entitled without making allegations of material facts in support of his plea to set aside an election to claim an order for inspection of the ballot papers and seek to supply the lacuna in his petition by showing that if all the votes are scrutinised again by the tribunal it may appear that there had been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting. To support his claim for setting aside the election the petitioner has to make precise allegations of material facts which having regard to the elaborate rules are or must be deemed to be within his knowledge. The nature of the allegations must of course depend upon the facts of each case. But if material facts are not stated, he cannot be permitted to make out a case by fishing out the evidence from an inspection of the ballot papers." (7) IN our opinion, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be availed of in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal. Therefore, his first contention that the court below ought to have granted an inspection and decided the dispute has no merit. (8) COMING to the other contention that the counting agents were kept away, there is absolutely no merit. In fact the documents furnished before us show that all the counting agents including the counting agent of the appellant have signed the certificate staling that they were fully satisfied with the conduct of the counting in respect of polling station at the end of each round. In fact the documents furnished before us show that all the counting agents including the counting agent of the appellant have signed the certificate staling that they were fully satisfied with the conduct of the counting in respect of polling station at the end of each round. Further, the appellant in his letters addressed to the Returning Officer during the counting which are annexed as Annexures P-l and P-2. has made no allegation that the counting agents were kept away and were not allowed to inspect the alleged rejected ballot Papers. (9) FOR all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 1,000.00.