Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, i.e., Election Tribunal under the Panchayats Act, whereby he directed a Commissioner to be appointed to recount the votes. The successful candidate in the election has filed this revision, alleging that the impugned order is perverse, and the order suffers from illegality and material irregularity. The contention of the petitioner herein is that on the basis of the averments in the Election Petition, such an order ought not to have been passed. What the election petitioner wanted was only a fishing of evidence without any material. The allegations are vague without any specific instances, merely because the Election petitioner got defeated by a narrow margin, that cannot be a ground for allowing inspection of ballot papers. 2. As against the said contention, learned Senior Counsel for first respondent, who is the election petitioner, submitted that this Court shall not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the order does not suffer from any illegality. Even if another view is possible on the materials, that cannot be a ground for interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India that apart, it is contended that there was irregularity in counting has been proved beyond doubt and a prima facie case has been established by the election petitioner as to invoke the power of Court for inspection of ballot papers. 3. Before going to the law on the point, let us consider what is the statement made in the Election petition, for, according to me, only if the averments therein are sufficient, the Court can get jurisdiction to order inspection of ballot papers. Paragraph 6 of the Election petition reads thus:— “While counting of votes the petitioner and his agent represented these facts and requests the counting officers and the returning officers both orally and in writing to reject these votes polled by these persons. But they refused to consider the said objection. Theirs such acts are illegal. They had failed to supply any form to the petitioner as prescribed. Subsequently, the counting officers and the returning officer, and the returning officer were against the petitioner. The counting officers want only put the petitioners valid votes to invalid vote box. The petitioners valid votes added in the invalid votes. Theirs such acts are illegal. They had failed to supply any form to the petitioner as prescribed. Subsequently, the counting officers and the returning officer, and the returning officer were against the petitioner. The counting officers want only put the petitioners valid votes to invalid vote box. The petitioners valid votes added in the invalid votes. The petitioner and his agents strongly objected but the counting officers and returning officer did not care about the objections. The counting officers counting the votes in favour of 1 -st respondent. Furthermore, the counting officers didnt known which is valid votes and which is not invalid votes, when the polling of votes, the Booth officers received the thumb impression from the some voters and given the ballot papers. The thumb impression ink-mark available in the ballot papers. The same votes are rejected and put into the invalid voted votes. Totally the counting officers are newly appointed, they were not properly counting the votes. The counting officers threatening the petitioners agent and told him that they were Supreme Authority for counting votes. The counting officers and the Returning officer were not allowed the petitioners and his agent rights in the counting. The petitioners and his agent every right to verify the every vote but they were not permitted for the same. Finally, the Returning officer announced that the 1 -st respondent securing 518 votes. The petitioner has securing 512 votes. The different is 6 votes. More than 100 voters votes added in the invalid votes by the counting officers some valid votes are included to the 1-st respondent which are void and which ought to be rejected. The counting officers and Returning officer not seen the intention of voters in the ballot. The petitioner has given petition to the Returning officer for recounting of votes. But the Returning officer not given any acknowledgement to the petitioner and not accepted to recounting of votes. The Returning officer illegally declared elected the 1-st Respondent. Therefore, declaration of election of the 1-st Respondent is illegal and therefore has to be declared void and the petitioner has to be declared elected as the President of Pudunillai Village panchayat.” 4. Election petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1. The Returning officer illegally declared elected the 1-st Respondent. Therefore, declaration of election of the 1-st Respondent is illegal and therefore has to be declared void and the petitioner has to be declared elected as the President of Pudunillai Village panchayat.” 4. Election petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1. Suffice it to say that he does not give any specific instance as to which vote was not counted or which vote which was declared invalid was considered in favour of the petitioner herein. It has also come out in evidence that before the results of the election were declared, at the instance of the very same election petitioner, a recounting was made and the number of votes obtained by petitioner herein were increased by one more vote, though in the case of the election petitioner also, there was an increase in the number of votes. 5. A reading of the Election Petition makes it clear that the election petitioner has no definite case and he has mixed up all allegations together in one paragraph. In this connection, it may also be noted that the Tribunal held that the first respondent herein has not substantiated his case that votes were polled in the name of dead persons, nor is there any case of impersonation. It was also held that the election was held in accordance with Panchayat Election Rules, and there is no ground to set aside the election on that ground. The only reason found by the lower Court to allow the inspection of ballot papers is that at the time of recounting there was a difference in the votes polled by petitioner, first respondent and also other defeated candidate, i.e., second respondent herein. This, according to the lower Court, is a prima facie case to order recounting, or inspection of ballot papers. The lower Court held that there was irregularity in the recounting, as otherwise the mistake would not have happened. I do not think that the said approach of the lower Court could be supported, because that is against the settled legal principles. 5-A. In (1976) 1 SCC 687 (Bhabi v. Sheo Govind), Their Lordships considered this question and summarised the circumstances under which an inspection could be ordered. I do not think that the said approach of the lower Court could be supported, because that is against the settled legal principles. 5-A. In (1976) 1 SCC 687 (Bhabi v. Sheo Govind), Their Lordships considered this question and summarised the circumstances under which an inspection could be ordered. In paragraph 15 of the judgment (at page 693), Their Lordships have held thus:— “Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matters sample inspection, of the ballot papers: (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations: (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specify and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials for declarating the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials. If all these circumstances enter into the mind of the Judge and he is satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled in a given case, the exercise of the discretion would undoubtedly be proper.” 6. In 1993 Supp (2) SCC 82 (Saty-anarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and others), the defeated candidate filed an objection before the Returning Officer regarding the counting which read thus:— “In spite of objection raised by our representative, votes in our favour were either rejected or they were counted in favour of the opposite party. In 1993 Supp (2) SCC 82 (Saty-anarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and others), the defeated candidate filed an objection before the Returning Officer regarding the counting which read thus:— “In spite of objection raised by our representative, votes in our favour were either rejected or they were counted in favour of the opposite party. Therefore, it is requested that votes may be recounted.” The Returning Officer asked the Assistant Returning Officer regarding clarification of the objection. It was clarified by the Assistant Returning Officer by stating that during the course of counting, no objection was raised and only after the completion of the voting, it was found that there was a difference of 24 votes. He, thereafter, rejected the request for recounting. On an Election Petition filed by the defeated candidate, the High Court of patna ordered recounting. The same was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court. While considering this question, in paragraph 10, Their Lordships held thus- “It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting, there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-Respondent before the Returning officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered. 7. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered. 7. Both the above decisions came up for consideration in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 101 (M.R. Gopalakrishnan v. Thachady Prabhakararn). In paragraph 16, their Lordships held thus:— “After a cursory glance of the relevant provisions discussed above, it is thus abundantly clear that the rules provide adequate opportunity to a candidate, his election agent and counting agent to have a watch over the counting process before the result is declared and if they raise any objection as to the validity or otherwise of any ballot paper and if the said objection is improperly rejected, the candidate, his counting and election agent are well informed of the nature of statement of material fact s in the election petition in relation thereto. It is for these reasons that this Court has repeatedly held that the secrecy of the vote has to be maintained and a demand of re-count should not ordinarily be granted unless the election petitioner makes out a prime facie case with regard to the errors in the counting and is able to show that the errors are of such magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate is materially affected. The election petitioner, in order to seek an order of re-count, has to place material and make out a prima facie case on the threshold and before an order of recount is actually made. The demand of a defeated candidate for re-count of votes has to be considered keeping in view that secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and, therefore, unless the election petitioner is able not only to plead and disclose the material facts but also substantiate the same by means of evidence of reliable character that there existed a prima facie case for the recount, no tribunal or Court would be justified in directing the recount. After extracting the passage from Bhabhi‘s case (supra), their Lordships further stated at the end of paragraph 17 (at page 114) thus:— “It is only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting, ordinarily it would not be proper to order re-count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition.” In this case, the request was made before the election was declared and that was also done wherein the number of votes polled by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 increased. I have already said that the Election Petition itself does not disclose any material in spite of the fact that a recount was made earlier on the request of the petitioner. When a recount was made earlier, petitioner was in a position to inspect the ballot papers and therefore, he should have stated in the pleadings as to how far the counting was bad Having got an opportunity to inspect the ballot papers, if he has not stated anything about the same in the pleadings, merely because there was difference at the time of recounting, that cannot be a ground for ordering inspection of ballot papers. 8. Learned senior counsel for first respondent relied on the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 2117 (supra) (Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind) already dealt with by me. Learned Senior counsel as relied on the decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 206 (N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai), the said decision is also not in favour of the Election Petitioner. In that case, Their Lordships said that the relief of recounting cannot be ordered merely on the possibility that that may be an error. It is well settled that such allegations must not only be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence. The fact that the margin of votes by which the successful candidate was declared elected was very narrow, though undoubtedly an important factor to be considered, would not by itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify recounting by the Court. It is well settled that such allegations must not only be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence. The fact that the margin of votes by which the successful candidate was declared elected was very narrow, though undoubtedly an important factor to be considered, would not by itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify recounting by the Court. The Honourable Supreme Court further went on and said thus:— “The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where: (1) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) The Court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties.” I have already said, how the tribunal below has considered this question. It held that because there is a difference in the votes polled while recounting, there is a possibility of mistake. On that basis alone, recounting cannot be ordered. The Election Petition must contain material facts regarding the alleged irregularity, supported by contemporaneous evidence, The same is completely absent in this case. Regarding evidence, we have only that of P.W.1. The Tribunal, on material points, has discarded the evidence of P.W.1. The prima facie satisfaction must be based on the above materials, and not for any other extraneous reasons. If this is the legal position, and if the Tribunal has entered a finding ignoring the same, that will sufficient ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and the Civil Revision Petition is al lowed. Election Petition filed by first respondent herein stands dismissed with costs, both before the Election Tribunal as well as before this Court. Advocate fee for Revision is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only). CMP No. 9553 of 1998 for stay petition is also dismissed.