. (36). Paragraphs 1 to 9 and 12 furnish the information in a chronological order as how the election has been held and the votes had been counted. The election was held on 25.11.98 and the counting took place on 28.11.98 in the Lohia College, Churu in rooms No. 1 and 49, wherein 8 tables had been fixed in each room. The votes secured by each candidate had been as under:- 1. Shri Jaidev Prasad Indoria 42373 2. Shri Rajendra Dildhania 384 3. Shri Hari Shankar Bhabhra 41996 4. Shri Poonam Chand Rajpurohit 1930 5. Shri Bhera Ram 713 6. Shri Mangal Chand 140 7. Shri Bhawani Shankar. 58 8. Shri Madan Singh (Loonchh) 1118 9. Shri Shyam Lal 46 (37). In para 10 and 11 of the election petition, it has been alleged that Instructions for mixing up of the ballots had not been complied with strictly inspite of the complaint by counting agent of B.J.P. candidate. In absence of any averment that non- compliance of the Instruction for mixing up of the ballots had material affected the result of the election, the contents therein do not disclose any cause of action for recounting. (38). Paragraph 13 contains the allegation of connivance of the returned candidate with the Returning Officer Mr. Mahaveer Prasad. No basis for such a connivance has been disclosed, nor it is alleged that who was knowing about the alleged connivance and on what basis the connivance is alleged. Moreso, there has been no protest to such a charge prior to counting of votes. A mere bald statement that the Returning Officer was in connivance with the returned candidate does not furnish any ground for recounting. Merely because he had changed some of the members of Counting Staff, does not lead to the conclusion that it was an out-come of connivance as it may be an administrative exigency and the persons assigned the duty may not be available for that purpose for one reason or the another. There is no averment that same has materially affected the result of the election. (39). Paragraph 14 is again regarding some connivance between the returned candidate with the Returning Officer in allowing a large number of counting agents on behalf of the returned candidate though purported to be the agents of other candidates. There is no averment that same has materially affected the result of the election. (39). Paragraph 14 is again regarding some connivance between the returned candidate with the Returning Officer in allowing a large number of counting agents on behalf of the returned candidate though purported to be the agents of other candidates. Under law every candidate has a right to have his counting agents present in the counting halls. It is not petitioners case that the signatures on application forms for attending the counting halls had been forged by the returned candidate or his election agent; or the counting agents present in the counting halls were not the authorised counting agents, If the law itself provides for having a counting agent by every candidate, it cannot be a ground for alleging, connivance between the returned candidate and the Returning Officer. (40). Paragraph 15 contains the allegation that the counting agents were interes- ted in manipulating the victory of the returned candidate and a large number of coun- ting agents of different candidates did not permit the counting agents of B.J.P. candida- tes to raise their grievance. The allegations are not specific and precise, they are com- pletely vague and unspecified. Petitioner ought to have disclosed as in which round, on which table it so happened and who had done it. What was the number of ballots in respect of which counting agents of B.J.P. candidate had raised the objection and the Counting Assistants did not accept it and even if it was turned down by the Coun- ting. Assistant, whether any protest was made to the Returning Officer? The paragraph does not meet the requirement of law regarding ``containing the full particulars. (41). Paragraphs 16, 20 and 21 had been given up by Mr. Raghav at the time of arguments stating that the same did not contain full facts and as such these paragraphs do not require any discussion. (42). Paragraph 17 contains the allegation that television set installed in the Counting Centre depicted that Congress candidates were having a lead in more than one hundred constituencies and it came to the knowledge of the employees. It does not say further how it has materially affected the result in the instant case. Mere having information that in most of the constituencies Congress candidates were leading, does not give a cause or reason for recount of votes. It does not say further how it has materially affected the result in the instant case. Mere having information that in most of the constituencies Congress candidates were leading, does not give a cause or reason for recount of votes. Therefore, the allegation remains incomplete, half-hearted and of no avail. (43). In Paragraphs 18 and 19, allegations have been made that on particular table, the employees of Education Department, who had special grievance against Mr. Bhabhra, had been posted. It is too general a statement to allege that employees of Education Department were having some grudge against the B.J.P. candidate merely on the ground that he happened to be the Finance Minister. As there is no further reference as what had been their demands, when it was rejected and what was the main role of Mr. Bhabhra in rejecting their demand, the allegations are general and vague and do not disclose the material facts. Enhancing the pay scales was a general problem for all the Government employees and it is not the case of the petitioner that it was confined only to the employees of the education department. Such a vague allegation does not constitute material fact. (44). Paragraph 22 contains the allegation that Mr. Vishnu Indoria, who had been assigned the duty in the counting in placing of Mr. Ratan Pareek, was a relative of respondent No.1. The allegation does not go further as how Mr. Vishnu Indoria had acted in counting, what was the duty assigned to him in particular and how he had been an instrument in changing the election result materially. The document (Annx. 2) filed by the petitioner himself shows that he had been assigned the duty of preparing the result sheet. In absence of any allegation that how the result sheet had wrongly been prepared and how he could materially affect the result of the election. Even if it is accepted that he was related to the returned candidate, it does not make out a case for recounting. (45). In paragraph 23, it is alleged that one Mr. Satya Narain Jangid had mixed up certain votes and on lodging the complaint, the error was rectified. If the error had already been rectified, nothing remains so far as the allegation contained in paragraph 23 is concerned. (46). In paragraph 24, allegations have been made against Mr. (45). In paragraph 23, it is alleged that one Mr. Satya Narain Jangid had mixed up certain votes and on lodging the complaint, the error was rectified. If the error had already been rectified, nothing remains so far as the allegation contained in paragraph 23 is concerned. (46). In paragraph 24, allegations have been made against Mr. Satya Narain Jangid regarding irregularity and mischief on table Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 8 and the Returning Officer did not stop him from dong so even after raising objection by the counting agent of B.J.P. candidate. This paragraph also does not disclose the material fact as in which round what irregularity had been committed and who was the counting agent who raised the objection and how the Returning Officer had rejected his objection. As per the document (Annx. 2) filed by the petitioner himself, the duty of Mr. Satya Narain Jangid had been for English typing. The allegation made therein remains completely vague and general in nature. Neither the ballot number had been given nor the number of votes of B.J.P. candidate, which had been mixed up in the bundles of Congress candidate has been given. No explanation has been furnished as why no complaint had been lodged to the Returning Officer in writing and if he did not pay any heed to their request, why the complaint was not lodged to the District Election Officer. (47). Paragraph 25 contains the allegation that a large number of persons belonging to Sardarsahar, Dungargarh, Sujangarh and Churu had entered into Room No. 1 and created choas and confusion. Counting agents of B.J.P. candidate could not see the counting properly as they had been pushed back by such crowd. Allegations contai- ned in this paragraph also remain completely vague. It is not the case of the petitioner that they had raised objection, orally or in writing, as how such crowd had been permi- tted to enter the counting halls contrary to the Rules and Instructions, nor there is any specific allegation as how they had come and sat with which counting agents of B.J.P. candidate and prevented them of having a proper watch on counting. Allegation is not specific as it does not disclose whether all of them spread on all the eight tables or surrounded only one table; nor does it specify as in which round it so happened, for the reason that the election agent of B.J.P. candidate had given in writing in respect of counting of votes in several rounds that he was satisfied with it. It has not been disclosed as who had raised the objection to the Returning Officer regarding the unauthorised presence of those persons and whether it was oral or in writing and how it was rejected. Moreso, if such a situation had happened, why it was not mentioned in the application for recounting of votes filed before the Returning Officer. (48). It has been alleged in paragraph 26 that the returned candidate from the neighbouring Sujangarh Constituency Master Bhanwar Lal came to the counting hall at 7.00 p.m., sat with the Returning Officer and asked him to favour the Congress candi- date and act against the B.J.P. candidate in the counting. There is no allegation in the election petition that in furtherance of his pressure, the Returning Officer had asked any counting assistant to favour the returned candidate or to act against the B.J.P. candidate. In absence of such an assertion, mere alleged pressurising the Returning Officer by Master Bhanwar Lal remained inconsequential for the reason that the test is that such a pressure should have been actuated further which could have affected the election result materially. Thus, full facts have not been furnished in this paragraph. (49). Paragraph 27 contains the general statement regarding illegality in sorting out of votes candidate-wise at table No. 3 and not paying heed to the objections raised by the counting agents of B.J.P. candidate. Again, it remains a general allegation without disclosing as in which round it so happened and which of the B.J.P. counting agent had raised the objection and if so, to whom and with what result. The allegation has to be examined in view of the fact that election agent of B.J.P. candidate had given in writing for most of the rounds that he was satisfied with counting. Therefore, this paragraph also does not contain any material fact. (50). The allegation has to be examined in view of the fact that election agent of B.J.P. candidate had given in writing for most of the rounds that he was satisfied with counting. Therefore, this paragraph also does not contain any material fact. (50). Paragraph 28 contains the allegation that in 4th round, at table No. 8, one extra counting assistant came and started sorting of ballots on the stool to help respondent No.1 and it resulted in difficulty for counting agent of B.J.P. candidate to see the ballots properly. The name of such extra counting assistant has not been disclosed; no number of votes he had sorted out, has been given; nor it is disclosed as whether any objection in this regard had been lodged and if so with what result. Mere statement that he was sorting out the votes on the stool, does not disclose the full facts. It is not further alleged that it materially affected the election result. (51). Paragraph 29 relates to one suspicious vote and also rejecting the valid votes of B.J.P. candidate and accepting invalid votes of Congress candidate. Number of such votes has not been given; in which round and on which table it so happened and who had raised the objection and what was its result, have not been described fully and in a concise manner. Thus, the allegations contained therein are vague and do not furnish full facts. So far as one suspicious vote is concerned, it would not affect the election result materially. (52). Paragraph 30 pertains to the allegations of support by the counting assistants to the returned candidate and when objection was raised, they threatened that they could do anything whatever they wanted. It has not been the case on behalf of the B.J.P. candidate in the application for recount, nor they have made any such complaint before the Returning Officer in writing. It does not disclose the material facts as which of the counting agents of B.J.P. candidate had lodged the compaint and to whom and with what result. Thus, the paragraph does not disclose full material facts. (53). It does not disclose the material facts as which of the counting agents of B.J.P. candidate had lodged the compaint and to whom and with what result. Thus, the paragraph does not disclose full material facts. (53). In Paragraph 31, it has been alleged that upto third round, the B.J.P. candidate was leading by 850 votes and after the knowledge of the prevailing trend in the State, the counting assistants and particularly the employees of the Education Department, played all possible mischiefs to manipulate the result for the defeat of the B.J.P. candidate. The paragraph does not disclose any material fact as at what time, after knowing the trend, the mischief was played, who had played the mischief and in which room, on which table and in which round it was done. Thus, the allegations are completely vague and do not furnish full material facts. (54). Paragraph 32 contains the allegation regarding the favour by the counting assistants on tables No. 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11 in illegally rejecting the valid votes of B.J.P. candidate and mixing of his votes in the bundles of Congress candidate and not paying heed to the objections raised by the counting agents of B.J.P. candidate. In this paragraph also, the number of round, serial number of ballots and total number of votes of B.J.P. candidate illegally rejected and the number of votes, tablewise and roundwise, mixed up with the bundles of Congress candidate, have not been furnished. Further, it remains a vague allegation that the objections raised by the counting agents of B.J.P. candidate were not heard properly by the counting staff. Without disclosing the names of the counting assistants, as on what particular time, which particular counting agent of B.J.P. candidate had raised the objection regarding illegal rejection of votes etc., the objection raised in this paragraph can yield nothing in favour of the petitioner. Further, allegation regarding loud shouting of other candidates counting agents also remains vague as it does not disclose in which room and in which round and on which table it so happened. Why the report in respect of such instance had not been lodged before the Returning Officer/District Election Officer. (55). In paragraph 33, the allegation has been that the counting agents of B.J.P. were not allowed to touch the ballots. Why the report in respect of such instance had not been lodged before the Returning Officer/District Election Officer. (55). In paragraph 33, the allegation has been that the counting agents of B.J.P. were not allowed to touch the ballots. Such an allegation is not acceptable because as per the provisions of law, the ballots cannot be touched by the counting agents of a candidate. The further allegation that they were not allowed to note down the serial number of the ballots, also, remains vague for the reason that the same does not disclose as in which round, who tried to note down the number of the ballot-papers etc. and who did not allow him to make a note of it. (56). Paragraph 34 contains the allegation of calculation errors of three votes. As per this allegation, Form No. 20 had shown that 979 valid votes had been polled in the second round at table No. 14, though altogether it could have been 976. Firstly, it is not the case of the petitioner that three extra votes had been shown in favour of the returned candidate, nor it is explained as how the three votes could have materially affected the result of the election. It may be a writing or calculating error which stood rectified. Therefore, such a trivial issue does not make a ground for recount of votes. (57). Paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are regarding the applications for recount of votes and satisfaction of the counting agents regarding the counting. (58). Rule 56-B provides for a procedure of counting of votes. Rule 63 provides for recounting of votes and rule 64 provides for declaration of result of election and return of election. As per Clause (1) of rule 63, after completion of counting, the Returning Officer shall record in the Result Sheet, in Form 20, the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the same. Clause (2) provides that the candidate or his election agent, after such announcement, may apply in writing to the Returning Officer to recount the votes either wholly or in part, stating the grounds on which he demands such recounting. Clause (3) provides that such an application shall be decided by the Returning Officer and it may also be rejected in toto if it appears to him to be a frivolous or unreasonable one. Clause (3) provides that such an application shall be decided by the Returning Officer and it may also be rejected in toto if it appears to him to be a frivolous or unreasonable one. Instructions have been issues; Chapter 14-B of which provides for counting of votes. Paragraph 1.1. of the said Instructions emphasises on the importance of counting of votes and counting should be done very carefully ``when the margin of difference between the two candidates securing the largest number of votes is comparatively narrow. It should be done with great vigilance and maintaining the discipline for the reason that such a course shall not give a chance for recount of votes. Paragraph 11 refers the provisions of rule 53(1) of the Rules, which provides for appointment of counting staff. Paragraph 13 of the Instructions provides that no person shall be allowed in the counting hall unless he is a counting supervisor or count assistant authorised by the Election Commission, public servant on duty in connection with directions and candidates, their election agents and counting agents. Paragraph 14.3. provides that entry of persons should be regulated strictly as the presence of any unauthorised person may vitiate the counting itself. The over-crowding may create confusion etc. Paragraph 27.1 provides for recounting, stating that after filling up the number of votes secured by each candidate in the result sheet in Form 20 and announcing the said number, the Returning Officer shall `pause for a minute or two, if during this period, any candidate or in his absence his election agent or any of the counting agents, ask for a recount, the Returning Officer must ask him how much time he would require for making an application in writing for recounting and after giving such a reasonable time, if application is filed, the Returning Officer should allow it in whole or in part if it is reasonable, but it should be rejected in toto if it appears to be frivolous or unreasonable, but the decision should be recorded in writing. Chapter 15 of the Instructions deals with declaration and publication of election result. Chapter 15 of the Instructions deals with declaration and publication of election result. Paragraph 1.3 thereof puts an embargo on the Returning Officer not to declare the result without proper approval of the Election Commission if the margin of the leading candidate is less than 5% of the total valid votes polled by them and there is a request for recounting which has been rejected. Para 2.1 provides for declaration of result after obtaining the approval of the Election Commission, if necessary, after completing the process and signing the result sheet in Form No. 20. (59). In the instant case, the result had been prepared and filled up in the result sheet at 7 : 18 p.m. with the following allegations :- ``(1) Margin of votes was very low; (2) With the connivance of the Congress candidate, there has been mixing of B.J.P. votes in the bundles of the votes of Congress candidate; (3) Counting was not impartial; (4) Votes of B.J.P. candidate had illegally been rejected knowingly; (5) At the time of counting, the counting agents of B.J.P. were asked to sit at far distance; thus, the re-counting was asked for. (60). The said application was rejected by the Returning Officer stating that the application was filed at a belated stage; when number of votes polled by each candidate was declared at 7 : 18 p.m., nobody asked for recounting; there was a difference of 377 votes but during the process of counting, there had been no objection from the election agents/counting agents of Shri Bhabhra who were present at every table, therefore, merely because the margin of votes, it did not mean that there has been some irregularities. The question of collusion of the counting staff with the Congress candidate had been alleged in completely vague terms without disclosing as in which round and at which table, the illegality has been committed. The election agents of Shri Bhabhra has expressed his satisfaction towards the counting, the allegations were vague and without disclosing as which employee had committed an illegality or irregularity or had not acted impartially. It is further not alleged as in which round, on which table which ballot has not been accepted in favour of B.J.P. candidate. The election agents of Shri Bhabhra has expressed his satisfaction towards the counting, the allegations were vague and without disclosing as which employee had committed an illegality or irregularity or had not acted impartially. It is further not alleged as in which round, on which table which ballot has not been accepted in favour of B.J.P. candidate. Moreso, the counting agents of all the candidates were sitting together, there was no substance in the allegation that B.J.P. counting agent was asked to sit at a far distance, nor any compaint had ever been lodged during the process of counting. (61). Another application for recounting was filed at 7 : 55 p.m. contending that it has wrongly been stated that election agent of B.J.P. was satisfied with the counting of Round Nos. 4, 5 and 6. He had never expressed his satisfaction, nor he had been asked to do so. The said application was also rejected stating that the earlier application for recount had already been rejected and so far as counting of 4th, 5th and 6th rounds are concerned, the agent of B.J.P. had expressed his satisfaction. Thus, the said application was rejected having no basis. (62). Two more applications for recounting were filed subsequently but once the result had been declared and the Returning Officer became functus officio, I do not think that it is worth consideration. In the application filed after declaration of the result at 11 : 05 p.m., allegations had been made for the first time that about one thousand votes of B.J.P. candidate had been wrongly rejected and had the same been accepted, it could have materially affected the result of the election; the counting had not been done impartially as the counting agents of B.J.P. were asked to sit at a far distance, they could not see the counting properly and could not raise objection and there had been illegal mixing of votes, particularly of B.J.P. candidate, in the votes of Congress candidate. But as such an application had been filed after declaration of the result, it was rejecting being nothing but a repetition and improvement of the earlier applications. Moreso, by that time, the Election Commission had already granted approval for declaration of the result. (63). There is a material difference between the allegations made in the application for recounting before the Returning Officer and the election petition. Moreso, by that time, the Election Commission had already granted approval for declaration of the result. (63). There is a material difference between the allegations made in the application for recounting before the Returning Officer and the election petition. It has not been the case of the B.J.P. candidate or his election agent that the employees of the Education Department, who had been assigned the duty of counting the votes, had some personal grievances or vengeance against Shri Bhabhra. Secondly, it has not been mentioned therein that some persons have been substituted afterwards to favour the returned candidate and moreso there has been variance in the contents/allegations even in the application filed before the Returning Officer for recount. Moreso, there is too much improvement in the version made on behalf of the B.J.P. candidate before the Returning Officer and the election petition. Election petition is based on an improved version as such allegations had not been there in the applications for recounting. (64). Undoubtedly, at this stage, for deciding this application, this Court is not permitted to see the reply of the respondents or other relevant record of the case, but in view of the aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that the material facts in respect of the following have not been disclosed in the election petition:- (i) Total number of votes of B.J.P. candidate alleged to have been mixed up in the bundles of votes of the returned candidate. (ii) Table wise break up of such votes; (iii) Round-wise break up of such votes; (iv) No contemporananeous record/application complaining about such irregularity and illegality; (v) Total number of votes of B.J.P. candidate illegally rejected, with round-wise and table-wise break up of such votes; (vi) Total number of votes illegally accepted in favour of the returned candidate, with table-wise and round-wise break up; (vii) It was expected from the petitioners counting/election agent (s) to have raised objections in writing regarding the irregularities alleged to have been committed in the counting; whether any objection was raised, and if yes, by whom and to which officer and with what result; (viii) No explanation has been furnished by the election petitioner as to why any objection was not raised when the unauthorised crowd entered into the counting halls, nor is there any explanation as to why objection was not raised when the returned candidate from the neighbouring constituency Master Bhanwar Lal entered the counting hall and sat with the Returning Officer and promised him to favour the returned candidate; (ix) It has no where been stated that the instances alleged in the petition had affected the result of the election materially; and (x) There are no explanations why all the allegations made in the election petition had not been urged in the application (s) filed for recounting of votes before the Returning Officer; (65). Accordingly, the application filed by the returned candidate, respondent No.1, under Sections 83(1)(a) and of the Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 rule 2 of the Code, is allowed. Consequently, the election petition is dismissed on the ground that the averments contained in the election petition do not disclose a cause of action. Returned candidate-respondent No.1 shall be entitled for costs to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) only.