S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, challenging an order made by the learned civil judge, gadag, who acts as election tribunal under the act. ( 2 ) IN a petition filed under Section 21 of the Act, the first respondent sought for re-scrutiny and recounting of all the votes polled and to declare the election of the appellant as void and that he be declared as duly elected to ward No. 7 of the city municipal council, gadag-betageri. Elections to the said municipal council was held on 7-1-1996. When the votes were counted, in the first round the first respondent was declared to have been elected, though it is not clear from what margin. There was some evidence to the effect that he was won by two votes. An application for recounting was made by the appellant and on recounting the appellant and first respondent secured equal number of votes and when lots were drawn thereon under the relevant rules with the consent of the parties, the appellant was declared to have been elected. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an election petition. He raised several grounds, including that the returning officer had rejected several votes cast in his favour while he counted many invalid votes cast in favour of the appellant and also that the ballot papers which were received by post were not taken into account except one. Ultimately, the petition for recount came to be allowed by an order made on 17-12-1996. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) SRI rayareddy, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the main basis of the first respondent filing the election petition was that the ballots which had been received by post had not been taken into account and in this regard evidence was very clear that only one ballot had been received and that had been taken into account. Therefore, there was hardly any basis for the learned civil judge acting as election tribunal to have passed the impugned order. He also submitted that no other material was placed before the tribunal to show that there was any invalid rejection of votes or improper acceptance of votes. Therefore, there was hardly any basis for the learned civil judge acting as election tribunal to have passed the impugned order. He also submitted that no other material was placed before the tribunal to show that there was any invalid rejection of votes or improper acceptance of votes. ( 4 ) SRI subhash b. Adi, learned counsel for the first respondent, having filed caveat, has appeared and submitted that the order made by the learned civil judge was perfectly in order and that it was in conformity with the evidence tendered before the civil court and hence calls for no interference. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the secrecy of voting and other considerations involved in scrutiny, the courts and election tribunals have always taken the view that a person applying for such an order has to establish a prima facie case and various factors are considered in such matters, namely, (1) small margin of votes, (2) filing of complaints and objections before the returning officer, (3) filing application before the returning officer for recounting, (4) the number of invalid votes-whether large or small, etc. Matter of recounting is in the judicial discretion of the election tribunal and it is not possible to lay down any rigid or fixed formula for determination of the matter. It is the satisfaction of the election tribunal on the material placed by the parties before it which is decisive in such a matter. It is therefore impossible to apply one case to another as very rarely the facts of the two cases would be exactly suitable. Again, in one particular case one factor may be more prominent than the other. Therefore, what is to be looked into is the cumulative effect of consequences of all the factors that determines the ultimate decision. What the party applying must prove in order to obtain an order allowing inspection of ballot papers after a consideration of all the relevant Provisions is (1) that the petition for setting aside election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and (2) the tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete Justice between the parties, inspection of ballot papers is necessary. These principles have been laid-down by the Supreme Court in ram sevak yadav v hussain kamil kidwai. These principles have been laid-down by the Supreme Court in ram sevak yadav v hussain kamil kidwai. ( 6 ) APPLYING the aforementioned principles to the present caseif we scrutinise the material on record, in the absence of the evidence of the returning officer the trial court closely examined the evidence of r. w. 5 mohammed yusuf husensab adwani and r. w. 4 narayan veerappa devadhar, who was examined on behalf of the appellant himself. It was noticed therein that r. w. 5 was categorical in stating that only one ballot paper was received in post and whereas r. w. 4 has stated that the returning officer told him that he would not take into account the ballot papers received after the scheduled time. There was no material forthcoming as to what was the "scheduled time" fixed to receive the ballot papers. In that event, under the relevant rules the postal ballot papers received up to the time of counting can be taken note of. ( 7 ) IN this case there was material to show that the counting commenced at 5-00 p. m. if that is so, such of those ballot papers which were received up to that time could have been taken note of. In that event, it was not very clear as to whether, as averred by adwani (r. w. 5), only one ballot paper was received or as averred by r. w. 4 other ballot papers were received and which were not taken into account by the returning officer. Therefore, this really raises a prima facie doubt in the matter and calls for further inspection. ( 8 ) FURTHER, the election tribunal took note of various contentions raised regarding the acceptance or rejection of the votes and particularly, when both the parties secured equal number of votes, interest of Justice requires recounting of votes secured by both the candidates in order to see that the doubt of any of the party is cleared, any of the votes had been wrongly counted in favour of one or the other party or wrongly rejected. In the circumstances, we find that the election tribunal has applied its mind duly to the matters on record and did not draw an interference one way or the other. Therefore, we do not think there is any infirmity in the order made by the election tribunal. In the circumstances, we find that the election tribunal has applied its mind duly to the matters on record and did not draw an interference one way or the other. Therefore, we do not think there is any infirmity in the order made by the election tribunal. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, Sri rayareddy submitted that the persons towhom the ballot papers were issued were not on election duty at all and their evidence could not have been taken into account at all nor can the election tribunal ordered rescrutiny though it can order recounting. ( 10 ) SO far as the first part of the above contention is concerned, it is certainly open to the parties concerned to raise an objection at the time of counting also and it would be appropriate for the returning officer or any authority who is authorised to count the votes to take note of those objections and deal with it properly. Further, all that the election tribunal has done is to direct recounting. While recounting, it is necessary to scrutinise the ballot papers before counting them in favour of one or the other party or reject the same. Therefore, mere use of the expression "scrutiny", no further right is conferred upon the parties. In that view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong in the using of the word "rescrutiny" or "recounting". ( 11 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is rejected. --- *** --- .