M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 5-8-1996. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha and respondent No. 1 filed an election petition which is pending. By the impugned order, recount of the voles has been challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) A perusal of the impugned order dated 5-8-1996 shows that while the petitioner polled 475 votes, respondent No. 1 polled 472 votes. Thus there is a narrow margin of three votes. ( 4 ) NO doubt as hold by the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 206 , narrow margin of votes would not by itself justify recounting but the same decision also states that this is a fact which can be taken into consideration while deciding whether to order a recount. In the present case, not only is there a narrow margin of votes but this is also coupled with the fact that earlier the respondent no. 1 was declared elected. Hence both these facts together, in my opinion, justify the order of recount. ( 5 ) THUS there is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. .