Judgment 1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order dated 2nd June, 1999 and 4th June, 1999 passed by the learned Civil judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No. 149 of 1998 (Election) has been challenged. 2. The petitioner filed the aforesaid misc. case under Section 204 of the Panchayat Act praying for : (i) Declaration that the petitioner is the successful candidate in the Gram Panchayat election of Dihi Kalas (III) held on 28.5.98 ; (ii) An order of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing against the petitioners participating in the Panchayat works as the elected member and from destroying the papers connected with that election; (iii) If necessary, to recount the votes in the presence of the plaintiff-petitioner at the instance of the Court thereby declaring the petitioner as the elected member; and (iv) For other reliefs. 3. The petitioner's allegation was that after the election, the Presiding Officer declared him elected under Section 65(5) of the Panchayat Act and issued certificate in his favour in the prescribed form. But, the opposite parties in spite of such certificate being issued, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences in case the petitioner participates in the action of the Panchayat and, therefore, therefore said misc. case was tiled. 4 In defence, it was alleged that the petitioner forcibly obtained the certificate from the Presiding Officer under threat of dire consequences and on counting of the votes, the opposite party No. 3 was found elected. The learned Court below on the basis of the evidence on record found that the Presiding Officer concealed the truth and introduced some concocted stories and came to the decision that before declaring any of the parties as elected member of the Gram Panchayat, it would be expedient in the interest of Justice to recount the votes, In pursuance of this decision, the learned Court below recounted the votes and found the opposite party No.3 as the elected member of the Gram Panchayat so far as thee booth is concerned. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below acted with material irregularity by directing recounting of the polled votes, particularly, when he found the allegations against the petitioner are false and concocted. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below acted with material irregularity by directing recounting of the polled votes, particularly, when he found the allegations against the petitioner are false and concocted. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision in the case of (1) P. K. K. Shamsuddin v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Others reported in AIR 1989 SC 640 . In that case, the petitioner before Their Lordships sought the following reliefs ;- (a) setting aside: the election of the first respondent; (b) ordering recounting of votes; and (c) declaration that he had been duly elected. The Apex Court of the country laid down the law as follows :- "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 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 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. 6. This decision cannot be relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the recounting was made on the basis of prayer of the petitioner. It should be noted that the petitioner did not make any prayer for setting aside the election which in inconsistent with the prayer for recounting. 6. This decision cannot be relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the recounting was made on the basis of prayer of the petitioner. It should be noted that the petitioner did not make any prayer for setting aside the election which in inconsistent with the prayer for recounting. On the other hand, he wanted a declaration that by virtue of the certificate granted by the Presiding Officer in his favour after duly holding the election, he should be declared by the Court as an elected member of the Gram Panchayat and the defendant be restrained from interfering with his duties as a member thereof. He also prayed for recounting if necessary. The Court enquired into the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the opposite party. The learned Court below could not come h) a specific finding and directed recounting of ballots of the concerned booth and, thereafter, recounted the same in the presence of both the parties. The learned Court below come to a finding that the total number of ballots issued, the number of voters are 629 and cannot be 633 under any circumstances. The petitioner, Sk. Atiar got total votes of 305 and the opposite party No.3. Sahidul Molla got 314 votes. Out of 6 E.D. ballots, Sahidul Molla got 2 votes and the petitioner, Sk. Atiar got 4 and the other 4 votes were cancelled. So, the opposite party No.3 got total vote of 316 and the petitioner got 309 votes. Thus, the total number of cast votes are 629. The total number of vote cast in favour of the candidates is 623. So, six votes were missing. The learned Court below granted the six votes in favour of the petitioner still he falls behind the opposite party No.3 by one vote. On such a finding, the learned Court below declared the opposite party No.3 as the elected candidate. The petitioner did not object to such recounting. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As there is no material irregularity in arriving at the finding of facts as no interference is called under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed without any order as to costs. As there is no material irregularity in arriving at the finding of facts as no interference is called under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed without any order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given, to the learned Advocates for both parties. L. M.