O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 13th July. 2000, passed by Sri K. K. Tyagi, Special Judge/additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura, directing the recounting of the votes on the application of, respondent No. 1 Smt. Imarta Saini in her Election Petition No. 66/95-96 has given rise to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE wood-cut profile of the case is that the present writ petitioner Smt. Saroj was declared elected as Adhyaksh. Nagar Panchayat, Govardhan in district Mathura on 27th November. 1995. Smt. Imarta respondent No. 1 filed an election petition to challenge the election of the present petitioner primarily on the ground that the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner in respect of certain wards were illegally excluded from counting while the votes polled by certain other candidates were included for counting to declare the present petitioner Smt. Saroj as elected. It has been specifically pleaded in the election petition by Smt. Imarta that Smt. Saroj writ petitioner had secured only 1. 546 votes but her tally of votes polled has been mentioned as 1,596 by adding 50 votes polled in favour of some other candidates. According to Smt. Imarta, she had, in fact, polled 2,302 votes, but 708 votes which bore the mark of wooden stamp from which the rubber seal was deliberately peeled off, were wrongly excluded from computation in her favour, with the result, she was shown to have secured only 1,594 votes and therefore, with the margin of two votes only she was declared defeated by Smt. Saroj. A reading of the election petition as well as the evidence of the election petitioner Smt. Imarta, P. W. 1 and her husband roop Chand Saini. P. W. 2 indicates that in ward Nos. 1 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 where she was supposed to fare exceedingly well, the rubber seal was removed from the wooden stamp and when this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. the polling remained held up. When the authorities could not arrange for another seal, they had assured that the wooden stamp marks put on the election symbol of the candidates will be treated to be valid and consequently, the polling went on. the polling remained held up. When the authorities could not arrange for another seal, they had assured that the wooden stamp marks put on the election symbol of the candidates will be treated to be valid and consequently, the polling went on. She further went on to state that at the time of counting, the ballot papers on which the marks put by the wooden seal on her election symbol hathi were declared as invalid. After the close of the oral evidence, an application was moved on behalf of the election petitioner Smt. Imarta that the fads may be verified by the counting of the votes. Accordingly, by the impugned well reasoned and detailed order, recounting of votes was allowed by the Special judge/additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura. ( 3 ) IN the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution supported with a supplementary affidavit, two specific grounds have been taken to assail the impugned order dated 13lh July. 2000, for recounting, firstly, that the Special Judge/additional District and Sessions Judge, mathura, has no Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the election petition as it is the District judge only who being the persona designata was entitled to take it up and secondly, the secrecy of the votes polled cannot be permitted to be defiled merely for the asking of the election petitioner and since there is no material evidence and compelling circumstances for recounting, the impugned order is wide off the mark and, therefore, not sustainable in law. ( 4 ) THE election petitioner Smt. Imarta--respondent No. 1 has not filed any counter-affidavit. The parties counsel agreed that the writ petition be finally disposed of on merits on the basis of the material available on record. ( 5 ) HEARD, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai appearing on behalf of election petitioner--respondent No. 1 as well as learned standing counsel. ( 6 ) SRI Ajit Kumar has pointed out that the election of Adhyaksh of a Nagar Panchayat under the provisions is subject to challenge in an election petition by virtue of Section 6h of the Town areas Act, whereby the procedure contained in Sections 19 to 28 of the Municipalities Act, 1916, has been adopted to deal with the election petitions. The Thrust of the argument is that since an election petition under the provisions of Section 20 of the Municipalities Act is presentable before the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the area, it cannot be transferred to any other officer including the Additional District Judge. A reference was also made to certain provisions of the Municipalities Act in which earlier the Director of the Election (Local Bodies)had authority to transfer the petitions from one Election Tribunal to another. It was further urged that the amendments made in the U. P. Municipalities Act, which have not been specifically adopted by making a fresh notification under the provisions of Section 6h of the Town Area Act, cannot be applied to the election petitions concerning election of Adhyaksh of Town Areas. In support of his contention, Sri Ajit Kumar placed reliance on a number of decisions such as, mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and another, AIR 1979 SC 798 , Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777 , Jethanand Betab v. State of Delhi, AIR 1960 SC 89 , secretary of State v. Hindustan Company Operative Insurance Society Ltd. , AIR 1931 PC 149, bhaiyalal Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1962 SC 981 , Chairman of the Municipal commissioners of Howrah v. Shalimar Wood Products (Pvt) Ltd. and another, AIR 1962 SC 1691 . Collector of Customs. Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and another, AIR 1962 SC 316 and Ram Sarup v. Munshi and others, AIR 1963 SC 553 , to support his contention that an addition to the former Act is not necessarily incorporated in the subsequent Act and the repeal of the earlier Act does not affect the provisions of the subsequent Act by which the repealed provisions have been adopted. ( 7 ) THERE can be no dispute about the legal position that if a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of the former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act just as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it, and, the moment one has those clauses in the latter Act, he has no occasion to refer to the former Act at all. The proposition of law as has been propounded in the decisions aforesaid is beyond the pale of challenge. It would, however, not be out of place to mention that the entire exercise on the point undertaken by Sri Ajit Kumar is otiose for one simple reason that the Town Areas Act, 1914, is no more on the statute book as it stands repealed by the Uttar pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act. 1994 (U. P. Act No. 12 of 1994 ). The Amending Act was enacted with a view to amend certain provisions of U. P. Nagar mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 and U. P. Municipalities Act. 1916 and to repeal the United provinces Town Areas Act. 1914, so that the amended provisions may be in keeping with the constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992. In Chapter III of the Amending Act of 1994, certain provisions of Municipalities Act, were drastically amended and by Section 163 in Chapter IV of the Amending Act, the Town Areas Act was repealed, the effect of which is that Town Areas Act stands wiped of or say effaced. By another Amending Act, i. e. , U. P. Urban Local Self government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1995 (U. P. Act No. 26 of 1995), the provisions of municipalities Act were further amended. By virtue of the provisions of the amended provisions contained in Section 3 and Section 3a (3) (b), the Town Area was relegated to the status of nagar Panchayat. i. e. , a Municipality as constituted under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution. After the enforcement of the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act and the consequential amendment made in the U. P. Municipalities Act and the repeal of the Town areas Act, the legal position, as it emerges, is that the election of the Adhyaksh of a Nagar panchayat is subject to challenge by a petition presented before the District Judge under the provisions of Section 20 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. A petition presented under Section 20 (5) of the U. P. Municipalities Act may be transferred by the District Judge at any stage to an additional District Judge as is contemplated under Section 43bb of the Municipalities Act. The provision was incorporated by the U. P. (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 1982. A petition presented under Section 20 (5) of the U. P. Municipalities Act may be transferred by the District Judge at any stage to an additional District Judge as is contemplated under Section 43bb of the Municipalities Act. The provision was incorporated by the U. P. (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 1982. In view of this specific provision, the controversy whether the District Judge is persona designata or the expression "district Judge" would include Additional District Judge or not, is not required to be gone into. The various arguments of Sri Ajit Kumar were founded on the presumption that the petition was filed under the provisions of Section 6h of the Town Areas Act. Since this provision, as said above, stands repealed and now the provisions of the Municipalities Act are directly applicable to an election petition with regard to the office of Adhyaksh, Nagar panchayat, the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Imarta and presented to the district Judge was rightly transferred to the Additional District Judge and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to decide the petition and pass appropriate orders. ( 8 ) NOW it is the time to consider the second ground of challenge. It was urged that the order of recounting of votes should not be passed in cursory and perfunctory manner as the secrecy of the votes polled at an election is a concept which is highly cherished by our jurisprudence. As it is, the legal point canvassed by Sri Ajit Kumar, admits "of no doubt. It has been time and again emphasized that two conditions must co-exist before an order directing the inspection of the ballot papers can be made. One of the conditions laid down by the Apex Court as well as this court is that the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied on the basis of the material placed before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground that the making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. In this context, a reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of this court in Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others. 1985 UPLBEC 317, and a subsequent decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarif Giri v. Additional sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur and others, 1986 UPLBEC 183. In this context, a reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of this court in Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others. 1985 UPLBEC 317, and a subsequent decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tarif Giri v. Additional sub-Divisional Officer, Hapur and others, 1986 UPLBEC 183. 11 was on these rulings that Sri ajit Kumar leaned heavily to assail the impugned order. Sri Janardan Sahai, on the other hand, has repelled the submission made by Sri Ajit Kumar. ( 9 ) I have weighed the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with great care, caution and circumspection. The law does not prohibit recounting of votes. It is not a taboo. In certain circumstances where the recounting is necessary in the ends of justice, the Tribunal must pass such an order. However, the Tribunal should have some material evidence and basis for passing such an order as recounting cannot be ordered merely for the asking of a party or to please him. There are series of decisions of the Apex Court which have been dealt with in a recent decision of this Court in Shobh Nath v. State of U. P. and others, 1939 (1) AWC 451. The guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 sc 1249 , may be reproduced for ready reference. 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 in 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. 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. . . . . " The above principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in Narayanan v. Senunalal. (1980)1 scr 571 , The position as has crystallized from the various decisions of the Apex Court is to be found in paragraph 13 of the decision in P. K. K. Shamsudeen v. K. A. M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others. AIR 1989 SC 640 , in the following terms :"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 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. " In a proper case, the Election Tribunal has the power to order the inspection of the ballot papers and may proceed to examine the objections raised by the parties in relation to the proper acceptance or rejection of the ballot papers. ( 10 ) IN my view, there can be no better case for recounting of votes than the present one. ( 10 ) IN my view, there can be no better case for recounting of votes than the present one. There is enough assertion, pleading and material/ evidence to justify an order of recounting of ballot papers. As said in the beginning, a dispute has been raised about the illegal exclusion of the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner and inclusion of certain illegal votes in favour of writ petitioner. The assertion of the election petitioner that at least 708 votes polled in her favour bear the wooden stamp mark on her selection symbol hathi can be verified only after inspection of the ballot papers. Whether the rubber seal was deliberately peeled off or the votes having the wooden stamp marks have to be excluded or included in counting of the total votes polled are the questions which are to be decided after the initial verification of the above facts. All the relevant facts have been pleaded in the election petition. The pleadings find support from the evidence of the election petitioner herself which comprises of her own statement as well as her husband. As a matter of fact, it is a case where the things would speak for themselves and, therefore, unnecessary denunciation of the oral evidence of the election petitioner is unwarranted. In my view, it was the imminently suited case in which an order of recounting of votes should have been passed in order to do complete justice between the parties. ( 11 ) SRI Janardan Sahai further urged that even if the controversy with regard to 708 votes is excluded from consideration, in that event also taking into consideration the narrow margin of the votes leading to victory and defeat between the parties, would justify recounting of votes. In support of his contention, he again placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shobh Nath (supra ). The margin between the two rival candidates is of two votes only. The election petitioner is alleged to have polled 1596 votes while the election petitioner lost by two votes having secured 1594 votes. The narrowness of the margin in votes is also a weighty circumstance for recounting. In Smt. Vibha Sharma v. Smt. Saroj and others. The margin between the two rival candidates is of two votes only. The election petitioner is alleged to have polled 1596 votes while the election petitioner lost by two votes having secured 1594 votes. The narrowness of the margin in votes is also a weighty circumstance for recounting. In Smt. Vibha Sharma v. Smt. Saroj and others. 1907 (1) UPLBEC 500, it was held that narrow margin of votes is a relevant factor for passing the order of recounting although this fact by itself may not be sufficient for passing such an order. The said decision was followed in Shobh Naths case (supra ). In addition to the facts stated above, the narrow margin of the votes secured by two rival candidates is a circumstance weighty enough to justify the inspection and recounting of ballot papers. ( 12 ) IN conspectus of the above facts, learned Special Judge/ Additional District Judge Mathura, has rightly passed the order for recounting of votes. This order is quite justified, and equitable and is based on material facts and circumstances. The election petition cannot be effectively decided unless the recounting takes place. The petition therefore, turns out to be devoid of any merit and substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs is being made.