M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31-1-1995. Annexure 6 to the petition. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petition. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of gaon Sabha Siraudhan. Pargana and Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr on 20-4-1995. The respondent No. 2 filed an election petition Under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj act vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. True copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner is Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioner was declared elected by 171 votes. He got 666 votes whereas the respondent No. 2 got 495 votes. The respondent No 2 filed an application for recounting vide annexure 4 to the petition to which the petitioner filed order dated 31-1-1996 the respondent No. 1 directed for recounting. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) THE law of recout is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court vide Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Gazipur and Ors. , 1985 PULBEC 317, Bhabhi v. Sheo govind and Ors. , AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2117, Grahi Shankar Singh v. VIIth Additional district judge, Varanasi and Ors. , 1990 (2) PULBEC 1401 etc. The law on the point is that recounting is not to be ordered as of caurse as that would interfere with the secrecy of the ballot. There. Must be some allegation and evidence justifying the recounting. ( 4 ) I have carefully gone through the petition as well as impugned order dated 31-1-1996. In my opinion, the order is a cursery order which cannot be sustained. The order states that the authority has considered the evidence and that the petitioner has given the evidence of himself. Raghubir and Dayal who stated that the counting was not properly done. However, there is not even prima facie discussion of this evidence. In my opinion, merely stating that there is evidence that the counting was not properly done is not sufficient to order for recounting. There must be at least a brief discussion of this evidence. In my opinion, the approach of the respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with law since he has not discussed the evidence even in brief. ( 5 ) HENCE, I set aside the impugned order dated 31-1-1996 but I leave it open to the respondent no. There must be at least a brief discussion of this evidence. In my opinion, the approach of the respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with law since he has not discussed the evidence even in brief. ( 5 ) HENCE, I set aside the impugned order dated 31-1-1996 but I leave it open to the respondent no. 1 to a fresh order after discussing at least in brief the evidence of the parties. It the petitioner wishes to lead evidence in rebuttal he may do so before the respondent No. 1 and only thereafter a fresh order may be passed by the respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties. ( 6 ) THE petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .