O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947, whereby he has ordered for recounting of the votes, has come to be challenged in the present writ petition in the following circumstances. ( 2 ) THE election to the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Aazon. Block Sujangarh, Nyaya panchayat Amau, district Jaunpur had taken place, on 12,4. 1995, in which besides the petitioner-Shobh Nath. respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Lalji, Basant Raj, Shiv Bahadur and ajay Kumar were the congesting candidates. The counting of the votes took place on 20. 4. 1995 in which Shobh Nath, petitioner was declared to have been elected as Pradhan having secured 168 votes. His nearest contesting rival candidate was Lalji- respondent No. 3. who polled 167 votes. Lalji respondent No. 3 filed an election petition before the Sub- Divisional Officer. Macchli Shahr. Jaunpur. The present petitioner had filed a written statement. By the impugned order dated 23. 10. 1998, which is Annexure-4 to this writ petition, the Sub-Divisional officer/prescribed Authority has directed that the recounting of the ballot papers shall take place in his presence on 8. 11. 1998. It is this order, which has come to be challenged before this Court in the present petition. ( 3 ) SRI V. K. Shukla, appeared on behalf of Lalji, election petitioner- respondent No. 3. He made a statement that since a pure question of law is involved in the present petition for determination by this Court, he would not like to file any counter-affidavit and the petition be decided on merits on the basis of material available on record. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. ( 5 ) THE impugned order for recounting of the votes passed by the Prescribed Authority has come to be challenged 011 the only ground that the election petitioner (respondent No. 3) has not filed any application taking specific plea for recount of the votes and that he had also not placed any material or evidence, which may justify recount of the votes. This submission has been repelled by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. This submission has been repelled by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. ( 6 ) BEFORE examining the facts of the present case and the rival contentions of the parties, it would be proper to set out the position of law which has since been crystalised by a plethora of decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Without burdening this judgment with a series of decisions, I would do better to make a passing reference to some of the decisions and to give elaborate observations in some decisions which lay down a well embedded legal position. ( 7 ) THE first case in the series, which is required to be referred is Jagjit Singh v. Gyani Kartar singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 . It was observed that in a proper case, the election Tribunal can order the inspection of the ballot boxes and may proceed to examine the objections raised by the parties in relation to the improper acceptance or rejection of the voting papers. In exercising this power, the Tribunal has to bear in mind certain important considerations, such as that the petition should contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and in every case where a prayer is made by the petitioner for the inspection of the ballot boxes, the tribunal must enquire whether the application made by the petitioner in that behalf contained a concise statement of the material facts on which he relied. In an earlier case of Ram Sewak yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249 , the Apex Court set out the circumstances when an order of inspection of ballot papers can be made in the following terms : "an order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course ; having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled : (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case ; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that an order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. " In Narayanan v. Semmalai, (1980) I SCR571 : air 1980 SC 206 , the above principle was reiterated. In P. K. K. Shamsudeen v. K. A. M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, AIR 1989 SC 640 , in paragraph 13 of the report, it has been observed :"13. Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of voles. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes," ( 8 ) BESIDES placing reliance on the aforesaid rulings, the learned counsel for the petitioner further made a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Autar Singh Bhaadauria v. Chaudhari ram Copal Singh and others, (1976) SCC 43. The view taken in the said case was that a general scrutiny and recount of the ballot papers should not be lightly ordered. The view taken in the said case was that a general scrutiny and recount of the ballot papers should not be lightly ordered. Before making such an extra ordinary order, the Court must satisfy that all the material facts have been pleaded and proved and that such a course ts imperatively necessary in the interests of justice. Another case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is Satyanarain Dudhani v. Udau Kumar Singh and others. (1993) SCC 82, in which it was observed that recount of votes should not be ordered as a matter of course in the absence of pleadings of material facts supported by the contemporaneous evidence. In that case, the Court found that a cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Noi even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer, Even the material in the election petition had been pleaded with the object of having a fishing enquiry which did not inspire confidence. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is M. R. Copal krishnan v. Thachady Prabhakaran and others. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 101, in which it was ruled that an election petition in order to seek an order of recount has to place material and make out a prima facie case on the threshold and before an order of re-count is actually made. If the election petitioner is not able to plead and disclose the material facts, and also fails to 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 recount. Similarly In Ram Rali (Smt.) v. Saroj Devi and others, 1997 SCC 66 , it was held that recount should be ordered in rare cases and that too on giving satisfactory grounds for recounting. There must be an application in writing giving reasons in support thereof. ( 9 ) BESIDES the above decisions of the Apex Court, I would feel contented by making a reference to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge. Ghazipur and others, 1985 UPLBEC 317. There must be an application in writing giving reasons in support thereof. ( 9 ) BESIDES the above decisions of the Apex Court, I would feel contented by making a reference to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge. Ghazipur and others, 1985 UPLBEC 317. This case is an authority on the point that the law with regard to recounting of votes with reference to the election petition under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayal Raj Act is the same as is applicable in an election petition filed under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, and, therefore, the various decisions of the Supreme Court relating to recounting of the votes in the petitions falling under the Representation of Peoples act would be applicable to the election petitions under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. It was observed that neither of the two enactments countenances the Court or the authority to permit the election petitioner to make or Indulge into making of a roving enquiry with a view to fish out material for declaring an election void ; and it is this weighly factor which impels the Court or the authority not to look into or permit inspection of ballot papers unless the foundation for the purpose has been properly laid in the petition by specifying the ground and the material or the circumstances in support of such ground. In conclusion, the Full Bench held that in an election petition under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that before an authority hearing the election petition under the said Act can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exist : (1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the respondents is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground ; and (2) the authority is prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. ( 10 ) NOW it is the time to consider the facts and circumstances in which the impugned order for recounting of the ballot papers has been ordered in the backdrop of the above law, ( 11 ) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no recounting of the ballot papers is possible unless the election petitioner moves an application specifying the relevant details with all precision and since in the present case, no application was moved by the election petitioner, i. e. . respondent No. 3. the order of recount passed by the Prescribed authority by itself turns out to be illegal. Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3--election petitioner, pointed out that it is true that for an order of recounting, the essential condition precedent is that an application in writing should be made for the recount of the votes and as such, the election petitioner had made an application for recounting of the votes. A certified copy of the application moved on 29. 9. 1995 by the respondent No. 3--Lalji was brought on record. It was an application in which it was prayed that since the petition is for the relief of recounting of the votes and the matter is posted for arguments, certain documents be summoned from the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer well before the date of arguments. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 29. 9. 1995. This application has to be read in conjunction with the verified allegations and contents made in the election petition. A bare perusal of the election petition would indicate that the election petitioner had challenged the declaration of the result in favour of the present petitioner-Shobh Nath only on the ground that the ballot papers were not correctly counted and that the votes polled in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of the candidate, who has been declared to have been elected. It has also been set out in the election petition that as a matter of fact, only 645 votes were polled while the votes counted were actually 647. According to the election petitioner, it is not known under what circumstances, two votes more came to be polled. It has also been set out in the election petition that as a matter of fact, only 645 votes were polled while the votes counted were actually 647. According to the election petitioner, it is not known under what circumstances, two votes more came to be polled. He has made a specific prayer in the election petition that the ballot papers be recounted and on the basis of the recounting, the result be declared and election petition be decided accordingly. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the election petitioner had not applied for the inspection and recount of the ballot papers. The Court would not allow any party to resort to unnecessary hair-splitting. The substance of the matter is that besides the petition, which contains the precise allegations about the alleged mess created in the counting of the votes, another application had been moved as a step in aid of the order for recounting. ( 12 ) ANOTHER ground of challenge as set up by the petitioner is that the impugned order of recounting has been passed by the Prescribed Authority without any evidence or material having been placed by the election petitioner in support of his allegations contained in the election petition and, therefore, in view of the law discussed above, the order of recounting of the votes cannot be sustained. I find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order of recount of votes stands or falls on the nature of the averments made and the evidence required to be/or adduced before the order of recount is made. It is true that an order of recount has to be passed in very sparing circumstances and the onus lies on the election petitioner to indicate the circumstances in which the recount of the votes has become necessary. He has to make specific and precise pleadings for the purpose and not only this, he is further required to lead evidence and place such material which should leave the Prescribed Authority with no option but to order for the recount of the votes. The law does not prohibit the recount of the voles during the pendency of the election petitions. The law does not prohibit the recount of the voles during the pendency of the election petitions. The power of the Prescribed Authority to order for the recount of the votes is, of necessity, hedged with certain conditions and restrictions as have been adumbrated in the decisions referred to above. In cases, where there are allegations which are vague, general and sweeping in nature, such as that the ballot papers were wrongly rejected or the petitioner, by means of the election petition has embarked upon making a roving and fishing enquiry, the Prescribed Authority would certainly not identify himself with the election petitioner by passing an order for recount for the mere asking. But it may be, that in some cases, the ends of justice would make it necessary for the Prescribed Authority to allow a party to inspect the ballot papers and to consider the allegations of the election petitioner with regard to the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes tendered by the voters in an election. ( 13 ) NOW let us examine as to what was the material available before the Prescribed Authority to justify the order for recount of voles, i. e. , whether there was any evidence on behalf of the election petitioner to support the order of recount or it was passed by the Prescribed Authority without any material having been placed by the election petitioner. Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the present petitioner, Shobh Nath had examined himself besides examining four more witnesses, namely, Vijay Bahadur. Jag Raj, Jeet narain and Lallan Pal, the election petitioner Lalji did not care even to examine himself, and, therefore, it was a case where there was absohilely no evidence or material placed by the election petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. Sri V. K. Shukla learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 the election petitioner, urged that as a matter of fact, things would speak for themselves and it is not necessary in all the cases to lead any oral evidence, if from the documents and from the precise allegations made in the election petition, a prima facie case of recounting is made out. The submission of Sri Shukla is not without substance. The submission of Sri Shukla is not without substance. The tone and tenor of the election petition itself make it clear that the election petitioner has raised controversy about the number of votes polled and the number of ballot papers which were counted. There is no dispute about the fact that in all 1. 200 ballot papers were issued out of which only 654 were taken out. Nine of the ballot papers were cancelled on account of some printing or writing error and consequently only 645 ballot papers were issued for being polled. The counting tally indicates that there were 604 valid votes which were counted in favour of the various candidates while 43 invalid votes were kept aside. in this manner, the total votes which were counted were 647 as against 645 ballot papers which were issued for being dropped in the ballot box. Undoubtedly, therefore, there is a discrepancy of two votes and it ts not understandable under what circumstance two more votes came to be counted. Besides the allegation that some of the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner-Shobh Nath, the above glaring discrepancy remains unexplained and irreconcilable. The fact that the votes polled have not been properly counted and there is an apparent discrepancy in the calculation of the votes polled and votes counted is the main plank on which the election petition is founded, in view of this apparent and glaring mathematical error in the calculation, no evidence was required to be led by the election petitioner. The allegations in the ejection petition are quite pointed and precise. The facts, as set out in the petition have been duly verified by the election petitioner and would form part of the evidence. The expression evidence does not necessarily mean the oral evidence. It may also be documentary or circumstantial, in support of the allegations contained in the petition, the election petitioner brought on record certain documents to indicate the number of ballot papers received, actually used and those counted. He has also elicited a very weighty circumstance which also forms part of the evidence on behalf of the election petitioner. It may also be documentary or circumstantial, in support of the allegations contained in the petition, the election petitioner brought on record certain documents to indicate the number of ballot papers received, actually used and those counted. He has also elicited a very weighty circumstance which also forms part of the evidence on behalf of the election petitioner. Merely because the election petitioner did not examine himself or other witnesses, which in view of the averment made in the election petition, was not necessary, it cannot be urged that it is a case where there is no evidence of the election petitioner. ( 14 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. The contesting parties have sailed or sunk only by a margin of one vote. This is a narrowest possible margin in the victory and defeat. This narrow margin of votes is quite weighty and apt circumstance which would also justify the recounting of the votes. This aspect of the matter was considered in N. Narayanans case (supra), as well as by this Court in the case of Smt. Vibha Sharma LI. Smf. Saroj and others, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 500 . ( 15 ) IN the conspectus of the facts that the present petitioner Shobh Nath hud secured 168 votes to be declared as winner and the election petitioner respondent No. 3 Lalji had secured 167 votes, which resulted in his failure in the election, coupled with the fact that there is glaring discrepancy in the number of votes actually polled and the number of votes found at the lime of counting. an order for recount is the only way out to resolve the controversy raised in the election petition and. therefore, the Prescribed Authority-respondent No. 2, has rightly passed a well reasoned and elaborate order for recounting of the voles on a particular date in the presence of the concerned parties, in conclusion, I find that the election petition cannot be decided unless the recounting takes place. It was eminently suited case in which an order of recounting was warranted. The impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority-respondent No. 2 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is, on the other hand, well merited. ( 16 ) THE writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.