M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7-9-1996 of the District Judge, Sidharth Nagar and the order dated 17-5-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Itwa, District Sidharth Nagar. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri R. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhagwati Prasad srivastava for the respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) THE facts of this case are that an election was held for the office of Pradhan of Gram punchayat Madhwapur Kalan, Vikas Khand Khuniya-wan, Tehsil Itwa District Sidharth Nagar, and the petitioner was elected as Pradhan. The respondent No. 1 filed an election petition challenging the said election. This petition is still pending. True copy of the election petition is annexure-1 the writ petition. True copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner is annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 passed an order of recount dated 19-7-1995 but this order was set aside by my judgment dated 7-8-1995 true copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In that judgment I held that no reason has been given in the order dated 19-7-1995. I had further directed that the election petition should be disposed of within three months of the production of the certified copy of his order before the respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) IT is stated in paragraph-8 of this writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not decide the election petition within three months as directed but he prolonged the case and ultimately passed an order dated 17-5-1995 Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which he again directed for recount. The petitioner filed a revision but that was dismissed on 7-90-1996 by the District Judge as not maintainable, hence this writ petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent No. 2 in his order dated 17-5-1996. I have carefully pursued the aforesaid order. The relevant discussion therein relates to the issue No. 1 i. e. , whether there were irregularities in the counting of votes. The contention of the respondents No. 1 (election petitioner) on her evidence was that at about 2oclock in the night during the counting some persons felt sleepy because of which proper counting was not done. The relevant discussion therein relates to the issue No. 1 i. e. , whether there were irregularities in the counting of votes. The contention of the respondents No. 1 (election petitioner) on her evidence was that at about 2oclock in the night during the counting some persons felt sleepy because of which proper counting was not done. The respondent No. 2 has held that the petitioner did not led any credible evidence for rebutting the evidence led by the election petitioner, and hence the aforesaid evidence has to be believed. On that basis the order or recount was passed. ( 6 ) A perusal of the copy of the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1, which is annexure-1 the writ Petition, shows that there is no averment that at 2o Clock in the night some persons felt sleepy because of which there were irregularities in the counting. In my opinion in the absence of clear pleading to that effect such evidence on behalf of the election petitioner could not have been relied upon. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by Shri R. C. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of the writ petitioner has not at all been considered in the order of recount. The oral evidence of the writ petitioner has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit filed by Iftekhar Ahmad and a perusal of the impugned order shows that such evidence has not at all been considered. In my opinion it was incumbent on the sub-Divisional Officer to have considered the evidence of both sides at least prima facie before recording finding that there was irregularity in the counting of votes. It was nit proper on I part to have only considered the evidence of the election petitioner. An order of recount is a serious matter, and is not to be done s of course without considering the pleading and materials, as it interferes with the secrecy of ballot, vide Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, 1985 UPLBEC 317. In the present case there re two illegalities in the impugned order (1) the findings have been given on allegations which were not even pleaded (2) the evidence of the petitioner has not been considered. ( 7 ) FOR the above reason, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-5-1996 annexure-4 to the writ petition is quashed. In the present case there re two illegalities in the impugned order (1) the findings have been given on allegations which were not even pleaded (2) the evidence of the petitioner has not been considered. ( 7 ) FOR the above reason, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-5-1996 annexure-4 to the writ petition is quashed. However, I direct that the election petition be decided within two months of production of the certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2. .