JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - At election held for election Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Rurka Kalan on 21.6.1998, Mela Singh was declared elected. Chhinda son of Bhagu Ram questioned his election through election petition filed by him under Section 74/76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 read with Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 as amended upto date on grounds inter alia that he was not given fair deal in recounting of votes polled by them at the election. He was shown to have secured 1916 valid votes and Mela Singh was shown to have secured 1948 valid votes. Total number of votes polled were 4150. 286 votes which had been polled by him (election petitioner) should have been counted in his kitty which were not counted in his kitty. Those were declared invalid votes. In fact those were valid votes and should have been counted in his kitty. Certain votes were counted in the kitty of Mela Singh though they should not have been counted in his kitty as they were invalid votes. If said 286 votes had been counted in the kitty of the election petitioner, he would have been declared elected by a heavy margin of 254 votes. He made request for the recount of votes to the returning officer who passed on his request to the BDPO, Rurka Kalan at the time of counting. His request was not entertained. Later on that application was entered at serial Number 387 in the register at Page 501 and the said entry was made on 22.6.2000. 2. Vide order dated 13.11.2000 Annexure P1, Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar allowed the recount of valid votes. 3. Mela Singh has challenged this order through this petition filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby he has prayed that recount should not have been ordered by respondent No. 1 to this petition as no cause was made out by Chhinda for recount. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for Chhinda respondent and have gone through the record. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for Mela Singh that he had polled 1948 votes while Chhinda had polled 1916 votes. He had thus won by a margin of 32 votes. It was submitted that the total votes polled were 4150. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for Mela Singh that he had polled 1948 votes while Chhinda had polled 1916 votes. He had thus won by a margin of 32 votes. It was submitted that the total votes polled were 4150. Shri Gurdial Singh, Returning Officer-cum-Presiding Officer filed written statement in which he gave the details of the votes polled : (a) Chhinda 1916 valid votes (b) Mela Singh 1948 valid votes (c) Invalid votes 272 (d) Missing votes 14 6. It was submitted that it was clear that 286 votes out of the total votes polled were not counted in the kitty of any of the candidates. 7. It is true that recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course or on mere asking. A very strong cause has to be made out by the person seeking recount of votes. Sanctity of secrecy of vote has to be maintained. It was held in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, AIR 1989 SC 640 that an order of recount of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes. 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 votes. 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 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 interest of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes. 8. In Shri Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1993 SC 367, it was held 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 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. 9. There can, thus, be no manner of doubt that in a democracy like ours, secrecy of ballot is paramount and has to be preserved. Since recount of votes impinges upon the secrecy of ballot, recount of votes can be ordered not as a matter of course but on the basis of the material facts stated in the petition duly supported by evidence making out a prima facie case for recount to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or court and then only a recount can be ordered. In this case, the election petitioner has made out a case for recount. It is not a case where recount has been ordered on mere asking or as a matter of course. In the result card, the total votes polled have been shown : Total votes polled 4150 Votes polled by Chhinda 1916 Votes polled by Mela Singh 1948 Invalid votes Nil 10. There is thus discrepancy between what is shown by the result card and what is shown by the written statement of Shri Gurdial Singh, Returning Officer cum Presiding Officer. In the result card, the total votes polled have been shown : Total votes polled 4150 Votes polled by Chhinda 1916 Votes polled by Mela Singh 1948 Invalid votes Nil 10. There is thus discrepancy between what is shown by the result card and what is shown by the written statement of Shri Gurdial Singh, Returning Officer cum Presiding Officer. Case of the election petitioner was that some of the valid votes which he had polled, should have been counted in his kitty, those were left out of his kitty because those were declared invalid. Similarly, some votes which were counted in the kitty of Mela Singh should not have been counted in his kitty. Chhinda requested the Returning Officer for recount but he did not allow his request. If his request had been allowed and votes recounted, it could have been known whether the votes rejected were really invalid votes or those were valid and had been polled by Chhinda or Mela Singh. In the result card, no vote was shown as invalid vote and the question arose where 286 votes evaporated. Recount of votes would have been sorted out discrepancy, if any. In Mehant Ram Parkash Dass v. Ramesh Chandra, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 314, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down that while deciding the objections against the recount of votes, secrecy of votes has to be maintained and demand for recount should not be ordinarily granted unless the election petitioner makes out a prima facie case with regard to error in counting of such magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate may be affected. It was further observed by the Honble Supreme Court that smallness of victory margin by itself may not be a sufficient ground for recount. 11. In this case, at the cost of repetition, I must say that the election petitioner had made out a case for recount. If recount takes place, it would emerge whether the position shown on the result card vis-a-vis the position shown in the written statement of Shri Gurdial Singh, Returning Officer-cum-Presiding Officer, is correct. In a democracy, it is the will of the electorate which is to prevail. If recount takes place, it would emerge whether the position shown on the result card vis-a-vis the position shown in the written statement of Shri Gurdial Singh, Returning Officer-cum-Presiding Officer, is correct. In a democracy, it is the will of the electorate which is to prevail. If the electorate wanted to elect the election petitioner for the office of sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Rurka Kalan, it will be working injury to the democratic process if Mela Singh who was otherwise a losing candidate remains declared elected. Through the recount of votes, the will of the electorate will get reinforced. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.