This election petition is filed under sections 80, 80-A and 81 of the Represe­ntation of Peoples Act, 1951, calling in question the legality, validity and declaration of election result declaring respondent No. 4 as elected from 119 Tingkhong Legislative Assembly Constituency to the Assam Legislative Assembly. 2. There were 10 candidates from different political parties. The election petitioner contested the election as a candidate sponsored by the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP). The returned candidate, respondent No.4, was sponsored by the Indian National Congress. His symbol was Hand while that of election petitioner was Elephant. Polling was held on 27.4.96 and counting of votes was scheduled for 8.5.96. The ballot boxes after polling started reaching the strong room located at Govt Boys Higher Secondary School, Dibrugarh. The time gap of 10 days between polling and counting of votes created some apprehension of tampering with the ballot boxes kept in the strong room located in the aforesaid school. To ensure safety and security of ballot boxes, a petition was filed before this Court and a direction was issued allowing the candidates to engage persons of their choice to keep a round the clock vigilant watch on the ballot boxes at strong room. Accordingly election petitioner engaged Digendra Khanikar, Binod Borah and Biren Gogoi as his accredited agents to keep watch on the strong room. His grievance is that they were not allowed to enter the guarded area of the strong room and the entry was intentionally delayed. The authorities were dilly-dalling the matter, therefore, a complaint had to be lodged to the Chief Election Commissioner and it was at his intervention that the agents of the election petitioner were permitted to enter. It is on the basis of delaying tactics that the election petitioner wants this Court to draw an inference that it was only with a view to facilitate the commission of irregularity that the above named agents of the election petitioner were not allowed entry. It is rather stretching the matter too far. 3. The other grounds on which the election petition is based is alleged irregularity during the material time which materially affected the election result. The election petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 1 and his subordinates were in collusion with the returned candidate who happened to be the nominee of the ruling party at that time. 3. The other grounds on which the election petition is based is alleged irregularity during the material time which materially affected the election result. The election petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 1 and his subordinates were in collusion with the returned candidate who happened to be the nominee of the ruling party at that time. The irregularities alleged in the counting hall pertain to total number of counting tables on the second day of counting i.e. 8.5.96 from 7 they were increased to 14. Naturally the election petitioner's counting agents could not attend to all the 14 tables. The other allegation is on 9.5.96 the counting was stopped between 7 AM to 9 AM while the ballot boxes were lying in open and some in trunk and not candidate or counting agent was allowed to remain in the hall during that period. Counting agents were forced to vacate the counting hall. Petitioner's grievance is thatunschdeuled suddenly declared break in counting was solely with a view to help respondent No. 4, a candidate sponsored by the then ruling party. It has therefore, been urged that it should be viewed with all seriousness. 4. It is petitioner's case that despite repeated complaint by the election petitioner, the respondent No. 2, the Returning Officer ignoring his request declared the result. The election petitioner polled 26,953 votes as against 28,910 votes polled by the returned candidate, respondent No. 4. The victory margin is fairly large almost 2000 and to be precise 1957. Naturally, therefore, respondent No. 4 was declared elected. 5. Now the present petition challenging the election is essentially on the ground of irregularities committed during the course of counting improperly rejecting the valid votes. According to the election petitioner it is a case of improper rejection of valid votes and illegal and improper acceptance of invalid votes. The election petitioner, therefore, prays for a recount. 6. 5. Now the present petition challenging the election is essentially on the ground of irregularities committed during the course of counting improperly rejecting the valid votes. According to the election petitioner it is a case of improper rejection of valid votes and illegal and improper acceptance of invalid votes. The election petitioner, therefore, prays for a recount. 6. The law on the point of recount has by now well settled by the Apex Court be series of decision from which the following principles are culled out: "(i) a recount is not granted as of right but on evidence of good grounds, or pleadings that there has been an error on the part of the Returning Officer in improper rejection of valid votes or improper reception of invalid votes, the petitioner is to prima facie establish that the errors are of such magnitude that the result of the election so far as it relates to the elected candidates is materially affected; (ii) secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite. Before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate, must be clear and specific supported by adequate statement of material facts; (iii) the Court must be prima facie satisfied that die order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (iv) the jurisdiction conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way as to enable the petitioner to indulge in a wrong inquiry with a view to fish out materials for declaring the election void." 7. It is in the light of these principles that the alleged irregularities said to have been committed during the course of counting are to be judged. Before taking up the evidence on the point it would be in the fitness of thing to dispose of yet one more irregularity which the election petitioner has alleged that his accredited agents were not allowed to enter the cordoned area of the strong room for keeping a watch although necessary formalities had been gone through by him. Assuming for the sake of argument that the election petitioner's agents were not allowed although as a fact it is far from true. There was some delay in allowing his agents and that delay was for want of police verification of these agents. Assuming for the sake of argument that the election petitioner's agents were not allowed although as a fact it is far from true. There was some delay in allowing his agents and that delay was for want of police verification of these agents. It is not the election petitioner's case that there was some tampering with ballot boxes while keeping in the strong room. A mere apprehension that because of the time gap between the date of polling and counting it was likely to be tampered is neither here nor there. Election petitioner has in his evidence admitted that CRPF jawans and other police force were guarding and patrolling the strong room. Had there been the slightest attempted tampering of the ballot papers in the strong room the matter would not have escaped notice and the election petitioner was not the only candidate there were other nine. 8. Now come to the other irregularities on the day of counting. The first irregularity pointed out is the break given by the Returning Officer on the next day of counting between 7 AM to 9 AM. There is some discrepancy or defect about times. Assuming it was from 7AM to 9 AM, the break was given to only those who wanted to avail but that too was on demand by those persons in the counting hall as testified by the Returning Officer examined as PW 3. Of course, the counting has to be continuous under the rule, but those sit for hours and hours together for almost 24 hours need some relief. 9. So far increasing the number of tables from 7 to 14 is concerned, firstly the Returning Officer has denied this increase of number of tables on 8th. The statement of the election petitioner in his examination-in-chief is reproduced here­under to facilitate speedy and better appreciation of the election petitioner's case: "My counting agents on the first day of counting came across with some irregularities. There were irregularities in the number of ballot papers which were found after opening the boxes and preparing the bundles. Rejected ballot papers were kept alongwith other ballot papers. Some doubtful ballot papers polled in my favour were kept apart as rejected ballot papers. Those ballot papers kept apart as doubtful some of them were clear, there was no doubt about them. Rejected ballot papers were kept alongwith other ballot papers. Some doubtful ballot papers polled in my favour were kept apart as rejected ballot papers. Those ballot papers kept apart as doubtful some of them were clear, there was no doubt about them. On our return to the counting hall after the break on 9th we found that the papers and pencil were not there and my opponent particularly the winning candidate was there while others were trickling into the hall simultaneously. The counting agents of winning candidate were there in the hall and the counting process had already started as we found it on our entering the hall. 1 did object to it but orally. The counting was over by 10th morning. The same staff continued during the counting. I know it there is a provision for reserve staff. I had nominated eight counting agents including one reliever." 10. Even if the above statement is taken as correct at its face value, yet it does not constitute a case for ordering a recount. Interestingly the election petitioner in his cross examination has stated: "I have already mentioned the anomalies and I have doubt and that is why I filed this petition." 11. Let us also see the effect of increase of table as testified by PW 2 who was his counting agent: "On 8th number of tables was increased to 14. When the ballot boxes were opened I noticed few irregularities, the signature of Presiding Officer on the slip • affixed to the ballot boxes differ. I could not see that was going on other tables. The tables were so arranged that the counting agents on one table were just behind the back of other counting agents or other tables." 12. Despite having notices of some valid votes in favour of the election petitioner, the same were rejected; no written complaint was loged. Even according to the election petitioner it was on completion of counting that he lodged a written objection and this written objection said to have been lodged has not been tendered in evidence much less proved. Although there is a document (Annexure 2) dated 10th May 96 which very vaguely refers to various irregularities without specifying even a single one of them. In face of such evidence it is extremely difficult even to think of ordering recount which has already noted above requires a prima facie satisfaction. Although there is a document (Annexure 2) dated 10th May 96 which very vaguely refers to various irregularities without specifying even a single one of them. In face of such evidence it is extremely difficult even to think of ordering recount which has already noted above requires a prima facie satisfaction. It is not granted as of right but on evidence good grounds which in the instant case are sadly lacking. 13. PW 2 has stated that the returned candidate was roaming about freely in the cordoned area alongwith some strangers and it was objected by him. He reported the matter to his candidate (the election petitioner) who also objected to the Returning Officer but to no avail. This does not in any manner help the election petitioner in seeking recount. PW 3, the Returning Officer, has not been put a single question about this objection. 14. PW 4 who was Assistant Returning Officer was put a specific question as to what precautionary measures were taken or contemplated to safeguard the ballot papers under count and his answer was : "Ballot papers kept in the table of the RO were either guarded by the RO or by the ARO throughout the break moreover the police personnel were present at the entrance of the counting hall." 15. He has further testified that there was demand by counting personnel and staff on 8th morning and it was allowed by the Returning Officer for one hour, it was extended for another one hour i.e. upto 9 AM and this witness who is the election petitioner's witness has categorically stated: "During the process of counting no occasion or necessity arose for deploying the reserved staff. When the break was declared the staff member as whole did not leave the counting hall at one and the same time, some of them remained while others went out. Those who remained also left the hall after counting of ballots at their respective tables. I do not remember as to what left first. On declaration of break the ballot papers tied into a bundle for which rubber bend was used. I do not remember if the signature of the counting agents were obtained on declaration of the break or they were sealed. I remember that an independent candidate, whose name I cannot recall in the moment was sitting in the hall all along even during the break. I do not remember if the signature of the counting agents were obtained on declaration of the break or they were sealed. I remember that an independent candidate, whose name I cannot recall in the moment was sitting in the hall all along even during the break. No objection was raised by any of the candidates or their agents on declaration of the break. On 10th the counting was completed around 3 AM." 16. Learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner has cited a host of authorities which are quoted below : 1. AIR 1964 SC1249, Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai; 2. Dr Saggit Singh vs. Gani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 , 775 (g) para 31,32; 3. S. Balev Singh vs. Taja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 693 , H/N 15; 4. Shashi Bhusan vs. Prof Balres Madhok, AIR 1972 SC 1251 , para 15; 5. Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govinda & others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 ; 6. Arun Kumar Bose vs. Md Furkan Ansari, AIR 1983 SC 1311 . 17. But it is not on the basis of authorities that a recount can be ordered. There has to be a positive evidence as to attract the principles laid down and relied upon by the election petitioner. So far the slightest inconvenience or the crowded nature of the hall and unsatisfactory arrangement is concerned, the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh vs. Bonshi Singh & others (1995) 4 SCC758, a case which in close proximity to the facts of the case at hand, dealing with the sitting arrangement, calling for police has held : "It may be stated here that an official video photography of the counting process was taken and it is transpires that the video tape which was placed before the Court was not dubbed or edited or manipulated in any manner whatsoever and the Court had occasion to see the original video tape. We have been taken through the evidences by the learned counsel for both the parties and also the decision of the High Court. It appears to us that there was reasonable apprehension of disturbances at the time of counting of votes and Returning Officer had justification to place police officials in the counting hall so as to avoid any disturbance. We have been taken through the evidences by the learned counsel for both the parties and also the decision of the High Court. It appears to us that there was reasonable apprehension of disturbances at the time of counting of votes and Returning Officer had justification to place police officials in the counting hall so as to avoid any disturbance. It is an admitted position that large number of candidates contested the election and if election agents of a large number of candidates are to be admitted at the place of counting the ballot papers, the Returning Officer had no alternative but to place benches in rows so that the election agents could sit in such benches placed in row on the basis of "first come first sit". In our view, it has been clearly established by the evidence that whoever had occupied the first row of the benches on the basis of coming first was allowed to sit there and whenever such person left his seat the other persons sitting in the second and third row had come and occupied the said seat. Placing offence, in the facts and circumstances of the case was necessary to prevent any untoward situation developing at the time of counting. Such precautionary measures taken by the Returning Officer, in our view, cannot be held to be unjustified thereby rendering the counting process invalid. It may also be indicated that in the central table the Returning Officer and the candidates were allowed to sit and from such place, the process of counting could be seen by the persons sitting at the central table. The learned Judge, in our view, has given detailed reasons as to why the contentions as improper counting of ballot papers for not giving reasonable access to the election agents to see the counting should not be accepted. Such finding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is fully justified and we do not find any reason to take a different view." 18. It may be noted that it is not the election petitioner's case that he demanded recounting on completion of counting and prior to declaration of result. On the other hand, he admits that he has filed the present petition because he has doubt in his mind. A recount is not to be ordered on doubt. 19. It may be noted that it is not the election petitioner's case that he demanded recounting on completion of counting and prior to declaration of result. On the other hand, he admits that he has filed the present petition because he has doubt in his mind. A recount is not to be ordered on doubt. 19. It is significant to note that no contemporaneous complaint relating to irregularities in counting of votes was made either by the election petitioner or his election agent or counting agent. There is no particulars of number of round, counting tables where irregularity was detected, has been given either in the election petitioner or evidence. 20. Applying the principles governing recounting as set forth above and testing the allegations as made by the election petitioner, in the light of these principles, the petition must fail, it is accordingly dismissed with costs of counsel fee Rs. 2,500/-.