Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1259 (PNJ)

Anant Ram v. Jai Parkash

2001-11-08

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - Elections to Haryana Legislative Assembly were notified under Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as follows :- "1) filing of the domination papers : 27/01/2000 to 03/02/2000 ii) scrutiny of nomination papers : 04/02/2000 (iii) withdrawal of nomination papers : 04/02/2000 to 06/02/2000 iv) allotment of symbol : 07/02/2000 v) polling : 22/02/2000 vi) counting of votes : 25/02/2000" The petitioner and the respondents contested the election for 70-Barwala Assembly Constituency. The petitioner contested the election as an independent candidate. Respondent No. 1-Jai Parkash filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Indian National Congress. The result was declared on 25.2.2000. The petitioner secured 14958 votes. Respondent No. 1 secured 37,476 votes. Respondent No. 2-Parmila Barwala secured 31618 votes. The other candidates secured the following votes :- "Name of the candidate, Vote secured Ravinder Singh, respondent No. 3, 2570 Ved Singh, respondent No. 4, 1843 Giani Ram, respondent No. 5, 66 Nathu Ram, respondent No. 6, 1279 Pyare Lal, respondent No. 7, 78 Balraj, respondent No. 8, 49" Respondent No. 1 was thus declared elected. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Election Petition under Sections 80 and 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Act with a prayer that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared void, and that the petitioner be declared to have been duty elected under Sections 101-A of the Act, after recounting/rejecting all invalid votes. 3. On the completion of pleadings by order dated 17.9.2001, this Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner have been rejected illegally ? OPP. 2. Whether the number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner have been counted in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer ? OPP. 3. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 from the 70-Barwala Assembly Constituency is liable to be declared as void and is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the Election Petition ? OPP 4. Whether the Returning Officer has grossly violated the rules of the conduct of election to favour respondent No. 1 ? OPP 5. Whether the Election Petition discloses any cause of action and if not, what is its effect ? OPR 6. OPP 4. Whether the Returning Officer has grossly violated the rules of the conduct of election to favour respondent No. 1 ? OPP 5. Whether the Election Petition discloses any cause of action and if not, what is its effect ? OPR 6. Whether the Election Petition contains the material facts and material particulars as envisaged under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and if not, what is its effect ? OPR 7. Whether the pleadings of para Nos. 4 to 9 of the Election Petition are unnecessary, frivolous, vexatious and tend to delay the fair trial and, as such, are liable to be struck out from the pleadings as envisaged under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? OPR 8. Whether the Election Petition discloses any cause of action, and if not, then the same is liable to be rejected as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? OPR 9. Whether the Election Petition is verified as envisaged under Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and if not, what is its effect ? OPR 10. Relief. Issues No. 5 to 9 are treated as preliminary issues. 4. The main allegations in the petition are that Returning Officer was favourably inclined towards Congress Candidate and biased against the petitioner. Due to the malpractices committed by the Returning Officer, the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 has been materially affected. It is pleaded that the election of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside and declared void in view of Section 100(1)(d)(iii). 5. Briefly stated the facts on which the petitioner bases the claim in the petition are as follows :- 6. In paragraph 6 of the petition, it is pleaded that numerous complaints were made to the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes. Recounting of the votes is claimed because of "the wrong, illegal and improper counting and reception and counting of votes in favour of the respondent No. 1 which were actually polled in favour of the petitioner in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 8th round of counting". A perusal of these averments shows that the petitioner does not disclose any details of the complaints that were moved to the Returning Officer. A perusal of these averments shows that the petitioner does not disclose any details of the complaints that were moved to the Returning Officer. No particulars of time, date, place or the contents of the complaints are disclosed. No reasons for the recount are disclosed. 7. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it is stated that "the counting of votes was conducted in a most disorderly, irregular and haphazard manners. There were fourteen counting tables for counting of votes around which a 4 feet high wall was erected and thereupon with the help of iron angle iron wire netting was fixed and the counting agent of all the candidates of assembly constituency were made to sit or stand on the other side of the wire-net". Since there was no proper arrangement for the sitting of the counting agent, they were unable to watch the counting properly. The counting was conducted in utter violation of Section 64 of the Act. This paragraph does not disclose any of the material facts which are necessary for making out any ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. 8. In paragraph 9, it is stated that result of respondent No. 1 has been materially affected by putting the votes in account of his name which were actually polled in favour of the petitioner. The actual allegation is that "the votes which were counted in favour of the petitioner which were high number has been shown in favour of the respondent No. 1 or in favour of the some other candidate and the less number of votes which were polled in favour of the respondent No. 1 or in favour of some other candidate has been shown in the account of petitioner to make sure the defeat of the petitioner". This is an omnibus ground lacking any material facts in support of the allegation. 9. In paragraph 10, it is stated that repeated protests were made by the petitioner and his election agent-Zile Singh as the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were being changed into the name of respondent No. 1 in the result sheet prepared by the Returning Officer. 9. In paragraph 10, it is stated that repeated protests were made by the petitioner and his election agent-Zile Singh as the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were being changed into the name of respondent No. 1 in the result sheet prepared by the Returning Officer. The particular allegation in this paragraph is as under : "The 3rd round petitioner received 124 votes but after mentioning the vote in favour of the other candidate the Returning Officer reduced the votes polled in favour of the petitioner by cutting 124 to 104. This has been seen by the petitioner himself and lodged a protest but nothing was done." 10. A perusal of the same also shows that there is no identification of the ballot papers. Even the name of the other candidate, in whose names the votes were being mentioned, are not stated. Clearly, this paragraph also does not state the material facts required in support of the allegations. 11. In paragraph 11, it is stated that in the 4th round when the votes were counted of booth No. 50 on table No. 8, the respondent No. 1 received only 18 votes but in the result sheet, the Returning Officer made in 232 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and reduced the vote of the petitioner. The petitioner again lodged a strong protest, but the Returning Officer did not pay any heed to the same. These allegations again are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favour of the petitioner. Again the details about the polls or the votes which have been switched, are not given. No details are given about the strong protest as to whether it was in writing or oral. It is not mentioned as to what time, the protest was made. It is also not mentioned as to what was the contents of protest. Such vague averments are liable to be struck out, under Order 6 Rule 16 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 12. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is stated that in the 5th round when the counting of booth No. 61 was made on table No. 5, the petitioner received 268 votes but the Returning Officer and the Supervisor shows only one vote in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith his counting agents made strong protest alongwith the other candidates and their counting agents. The petitioner alongwith his counting agents made strong protest alongwith the other candidates and their counting agents. The Returning Officer put the result sheet of booth No. 61, in a sealed cover and refused to show the result sheet. However, on their persistent demand, the result sheet was shown in which one vote was shown in favour of the petitioner and 268 votes which were actually polled in favour of the petitioner, were shown in the name of one Ved Singh. On the mistake being pointed out, the result was corrected. A perusal of this paragraph shows that even if the result sheet had been changed, it had no relation to the result of the petitioner. If anything it would have been Ved Singhs result that would have been materially effected. These averments are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. 13. In paragraph 13 again it is stated that something happened in 6th, 7th 8th and 9th round of counting when the counting of booth Nos. 82, 86, 97, 102 and 116 were going on. It is further stated that from booth No. 82, the petitioner received 311 votes. The Returning Officer tried to put the votes in favour of the Ravinder Singh to reduce the votes of the petitioner. This allegation clearly has no relevance to the claim of the petitioner against respondent No. 1. It is further stated that cutting has been made in the result sheet of booth numbers 86, 97, 102 and 116. It is further stated that in booth No. 102 on table No. 4, the petitioner received 105 votes and respondent No. 1 received only 11 votes. In the result sheet, 111 votes had been shown in favour of respondent No. 1 and only 5 in favour of the petitioner. There is also stated to be cutting in the result sheet of booth No. 116 to tally the polled votes with the result sheet. All these allegations again have been made without pleading the material facts with regard to the ballot papers. It is not stated which votes were taken from which table and in which round. The allegations are a perfect example of a roving or a fishing enquiry which is not permissible under law. 14. In paragraph 14, it is stated that but for the favour shown by the Returning Officer the petitioner would have been polled more than 32,000 votes. The allegations are a perfect example of a roving or a fishing enquiry which is not permissible under law. 14. In paragraph 14, it is stated that but for the favour shown by the Returning Officer the petitioner would have been polled more than 32,000 votes. Now in this paragraph it is stated that "the votes in the each round on each table has been changed and even the bundle of votes which were polled in favour of the petitioner has been shown in the favour of the respondent No. 1 who is Congress nominee by the Returning Officer who was unfair and biased against the petitioner and was favourably inclined towards respondent No. 1 Congress nominee without verifying the actual polled votes. That as per the information received by the petitioner from the counting agents there is mass bungling change of result sheet in favour of the petitioner otherwise petitioner would have been the winning candidate in place of respondent No. 1". The allegation further goes on to state that on account of bungling, there is a difference of more than 8000 votes. In fact more than 32000 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 only received 16/17000 votes. It is further stated that cutting has been done in the result sheet and "some time when counting of booth No. 61, was going on, petitioner himself caught the Returning Officer red-handed changing the votes actually polled in favour of the petitioner". No facts are pleaded as to in which round and on which table, and which votes have been transferred from the account of the petitioner to respondent No. 1. The pleadings are made on the basis of information received by the petitioner from the counting agents, but in verification, it is stated that the facts mentioned in this paragraph are based on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. Clearly, this is a vexatious statement. The allegations are imaginary. There is no foundation for the figures 32000 and 8000 mentioned in this paragraph. Without giving any particulars, it is stated that there is cutting in the result sheet. The allegations in this paragraph are again made with a view to seeking a fishing or a roving enquiry. Taken at their face value, the allegations do not disclose a cause of action to constitute a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. 15. Without giving any particulars, it is stated that there is cutting in the result sheet. The allegations in this paragraph are again made with a view to seeking a fishing or a roving enquiry. Taken at their face value, the allegations do not disclose a cause of action to constitute a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. 15. In paragraph 15, it is stated that "the Returning Officer rejected about 600 valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the mark has not been made properly whereas actually original mark was affixed in the petitioner column and its impression due to the wrong folding and excess of ink supplied on the marking sealed appeared in the column of another candidate". Again no details are given as to the valid votes which have been wrongly rejected. This infirmity is sought to be explained away by saying that the Returning Officer did not permit the petitioner or his election agent to note down serial numbers of the rejected votes. Again no details are given as to the time on which the request was made to the Returning officer, nor are the details given about the agent that made the enquiry. Consequently, these pleadings are again held to be vague and perverse. In paragraph 16 it is stated as follows :- "In the Ist and 2nd round of the counting about 4900 votes which were polled in favour of the petitioner in counting of the booth Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 were counted in favour of the return candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 as the counting agent who were present in hall were watching the counting but the real number of votes received by the petitioner and the returned candidate has been changed in the result sheet. In 3rd and 4th round of counting about 3000 votes which were polled in favour of the petitioner in counting of the booth Nos. 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 were counted in favour of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. In the 5th, 6th and 7th round of counting about 1800 votes which were received by the petitioner, in the counting of booth Nos. 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 were counted in favour of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. In the 5th, 6th and 7th round of counting about 1800 votes which were received by the petitioner, in the counting of booth Nos. 57, 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 82, 86, 87 and 90 to 97 were counted in favour of the returned candidate in the result sheet otherwise the same were received by the petitioner." 16. These allegations do not disclose the tables on which the votes have been polled. In the verification it is stated that the contents of this paragraph are based on the information of the counting agents of the petitioner, namely, Hari Singh, Bhagi Ram, Sher Singh, Ram Kumar, Hoshiar Singh and Kanhaiya Lal. There are no details as to which information with regard to which booth and which count have been given by which election agent. Even the figures about the votes which had been polled, are not correctly stated. These are mere rough estimates as it is stated that the votes involved are "about 4019" or "about 1800". The allegations like this are clearly liable to be ignored. 17. In paragraph 17, there is firstly mention of near "about 4500" votes which were polled in favour of the petitioner in booth Nos. 99 to 111, 115 to 122, 124, 126 to 140 were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. The objections raised by the counting agents of the petitioner were not looked into. When there is an allegation of the votes counted from booth No. 61 in the 5th round in which the petitioner is said to have received 268 votes, but in the result sheet it was shown that he had received only one vote. This time, the protest of the petitioner was accepted and the result sheet was corrected. Relying on this, it is stated that "the returning officer to make sure win of the returned candidate such as in the result sheet of booth Nos. 38, 50, 61, 82, 86, 97, 102, 116 which materially affected the result of the election and this has been done with the connivance with the returning officer and it was in the knowledge of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. 38, 50, 61, 82, 86, 97, 102, 116 which materially affected the result of the election and this has been done with the connivance with the returning officer and it was in the knowledge of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. So the wrong and improper reception and counting of about 17,000 votes in favour of the returned candidate which were actually polled in favour of the petitioner has materially affected the result of the election, so far as it is concerned the returned candidate. The election of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside and declared void in view of Section 100(d)(iii) of the Act. After exclusion of 17,000 votes from the account of respondent No. 1 and counting it in favour of the petitioner, that petitioner has secured highest votes and he is entitled to be declared elected". The aforesaid allegations do not disclose the essential facts with regard to the identity of the agents, identity of the votes. The petitioner is not certain about the exact number of the votes. No details are mentioned of the tables on which the counting was wrongly done. 18. Similarly in paragraph 18, it is stated that "as about 17000, 18000 votes polled in favour of the petitioner were wrongly and improperly received and counted in favour of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1. By taking out these 17,000 votes polled in favour of the respondent No. 1 and adding the same to the votes polled in favour of the petitioner, the result of the election so far as it concerned the returned candidate have been materially effected. So the election of the respondent No. 1 is liable to be set and declare void. The petitioner having secured the majority of valid votes i.e. more votes than the respondent No. 1 and 2 is entitled to be declared as having been duly elected". No material facts are stated about the complaints. There is no basis for the figure of 18000 or 17000 votes. Everything seems to be a rough estimate. The petitioner having secured the majority of valid votes i.e. more votes than the respondent No. 1 and 2 is entitled to be declared as having been duly elected". No material facts are stated about the complaints. There is no basis for the figure of 18000 or 17000 votes. Everything seems to be a rough estimate. In this paragraph, the petitioner has stated that despite repeated protest by the counting agent of the petitioner, nothing was done, so as to how the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were mixed and tied in the bundle of the returned candidates as the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were mixed with the votes of the returned candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 and were counted in his favour. This is a totally vague allegation, without any details as to which votes were wrongly bundled. 19. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is stated that the scrutiny of rejected ballot papers and the scrutiny of the votes counted in favour of the returned candidate and re-count would reveal that the result of the election has been materially affected, by mixing the votes polled for the petitioner with that of respondent No. 1 and counting this in favour of respondent No. 1 as detailed in the above paragraph and improper and wrong rejection of the valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner and improper reception and counting of invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1. The aforesaid pleadings clearly do not disclose any cause of action in emphatic terms. The averments are in the nature of a fishing or a roving enquiry which is prohibited under law. 20. Mr. Hooda has submitted that the aforesaid pleadings do not disclose a cause of action, and therefore, the petition has to be dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC. Large number of authorities have been cited by the learned counsel. Mr. Hooda submits that the matter is squarely covered by a Single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Sarup v. Peer Chand and others, AIR 1993 Punjab and Haryana, 180. In that case, A.L. Bahri, J., after noticing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments of the Supreme Court had held as follows :- "7. In that case, A.L. Bahri, J., after noticing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments of the Supreme Court had held as follows :- "7. Shri Satya Pal Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while making reference to Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, has argued that the facts stated in the election petition are concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and on such facts a recount of the ballot papers is called for. This contention as such cannot be accepted. Section 83 is to be read along with Section 100 of the Act. May be material facts to prove the grounds are required to be given in a concise manner however all material facts necessary to prove the grounds must be stated and if one of such material facts is missing, the petition cannot be put to trial." 21. A perusal of the above shows that all material facts necessary to prove the grounds must be stated and if one of such material facts is missing, the petition cannot be put to trial. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 : 1986 All LJ 625 in which it is observed as under :- "All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed, if it suffers from any such vice." 22. The pleadings in various paragraphs of the petition have been noticed above. A perusal of the same clearly shows that the petitioner has not pleaded the essential facts which were necessary to clothe the petition with complete cause of action. The pleadings being wholly vague and frivolous are liable to be struck out, under Order 6 rule 16 CPC. If the petition lacks even one material fact which is necessary to furnish a complete cause of action, the petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain (supra). If the petition lacks even one material fact which is necessary to furnish a complete cause of action, the petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Azhar Hussain (supra). Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1577 the Supreme Court considered the impact of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC on Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act and held as follows :- "8. The first question which falls for our determination is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC and to reject the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code at the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been filed by the respondent. Section 80 provides that no election is to be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act before the High Court. Section 81 provides that an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 by an elector or by a candidate questioning the election of a returned candidate. Section 83 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and he shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he may allege including full statement of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. Section 86 confers power on the High Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 or Section 117. Section 87 deals with the procedure to be followed in the trial of the election petition and it lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to the trial of an election petition, Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 6 Rule 17 are applicable to the proceedings relating to the trial of an election petition subject to the provisions of the Act. On a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paras of a petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and points out the defects. If the court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. Order 6 Rule 16 itself empowers the Court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings which may even be before the filing of the written statement by the respondent or commencement of the trial. If the Court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the Court need not wait for the filing of the written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the court finds that no triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to reject the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11." 23. A perusal of the above clearly shows that it is the bounded duty of the High Court to examine the petition even at the initial stage and determine as to whether the pleadings contained therein, even if taken at their face value, would disclose any triable issues. In this preliminary examination, the Court need not wait for the respondents to file the written statement or for the commencement of the trial. 24. In this preliminary examination, the Court need not wait for the respondents to file the written statement or for the commencement of the trial. 24. A perusal of the petition further shows that the petitioner has not made out any case for inspection of the ballot papers or for ordering a recount. It is well settled that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be violated to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. In support of this proposition, the learned Senior counsel has rightly relied on a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1249. Shah, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench on the point of inspection of the ballot papers, observed as follows :- "(5) In this case, on an oral request made by Kidwai all the ballot papers in sealed boxes were lodged with the Election Tribunal. Kidwai claimed in the first instance that the Tribunal was bound to grant an order to inspection because he had tendered the sealed boxes of ballot papers in evidence, and on that account all the ballot papers were part of the record. The Tribunal rightly rejected this plea, for by the mere production of the sealed boxes pursuant to its order the ballot papers did not become part of the record and they were not liable to be inspected unless the Tribunal was satisfied that such inspection was in the circumstances of the case necessary in the interests of justice. (6) An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts, on which the petitioner relies in support of his case. If such material facts are set out the Tribunals has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents with which a Civil Court is invested under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. But the power which the Civil Court may exercise in the trial of suits is confined to the narrow limits of Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure. But the power which the Civil Court may exercise in the trial of suits is confined to the narrow limits of Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Inspection of documents under Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure may be ordered under Rule 15, of documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the affidavit of documents of the other party, and under Rule 18(2) of the other documents in the possession or power of the other party. The returning officer is not a party to an election petition and an order for production of the ballot papers cannot be made under Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure. But the Election Tribunal is not on that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper case where the interests of justice demand it, the Tribunal may call upon the returning officer to produce the ballot papers and may permit inspection by the parties before it of the ballot papers: that power is clearly implicit in Sections 100(1)(d)(iii), 101, 102 and Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. This power to order inspection of the ballot papers which is apart from Order 11 Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised, subject to the statutory restrictions about the secrecy of the ballot paper prescribed by Sections 94 and 128(1). (7) 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. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision, supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision, supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." 25. Similarly in the case of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 773 Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for the Court on a similar point, observed as under :- "(31) The true legal position in this matter is no longer in doubt. Section 92 of the Act which defines the powers of the Tribunal, in terms confers on it, by C1. (a), the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit, inter alia, in respect of discovery and inspection. Therefore, in a proper case, the Tribunal can order the inspection of the ballot boxes and may proceed to examine the objections raised by the parties in relation to the improper acceptance or rejection of the voting papers. But in exercising this power, the Tribunal has to bear in mind certain important considerations. Section 83(1)(a) of the Act requires that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; and in every case, where a prayer is made by a petitioner for the inspection of the ballot boxes, the Tribunal must enquire whether the application made by the petitioner in that behalf contains a concise statement of the material facts on which he relies. Vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected, or invalid votes were improperly accepted would not serve the purpose which Section 83(1)(a) has in mind. An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not. In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. It may be that in some cases, the ends of justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider his objections about the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes tendered by voters at any given election, but in considering the requirements of justice, care must be taken to see that election petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the returned candidates election is void. We do not purpose to lay down any hard and fast rule in the matter; indeed to attempt to lay down such a rule would be inexpedient and unreasonable." 26. Again in the case of Samant N. Balakrishana, etc. v. George Fernandez and others etc., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1201, the Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid well settled propositions of law. M. Hidayatullah, C.J. speaking for the Court on Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Act, observed as follows :- "(29)...The Section is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. What is the difference between material facts and particulars? The word "material" shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad.." 27. In the case of Shri Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 367, the Supreme Court again reiterated the settled position of law. Kuldip SIngh, J. speaking for the Court, observed as follows :- "10. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the returning officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evident to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting, ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of the recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High 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. 11. As stated above only three lines objection application was filed before the Returning Officer. No objection whatsoever was raised during the counting and no irregularity or illegality was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. Even the material in the election petition has been pleaded with the object of having a fishing enquiry and does not inspire confidence." 28. With regard to the objection raised by the petitioner to the fencing of the tables, A.L. Bahri, J. in the case of Ram Sarup (supra) observed as under :- "12. Several matters with regard to seating arrangement of the counting agents, putting a barbed wire and fencing in between the table of the counting staff and the counting agents, according to the petitioner, was such that the counting agents could not see the process of counting and this infringed the rules and the instructions on the subject. Several matters with regard to seating arrangement of the counting agents, putting a barbed wire and fencing in between the table of the counting staff and the counting agents, according to the petitioner, was such that the counting agents could not see the process of counting and this infringed the rules and the instructions on the subject. That per se will not be, in my view, sufficient to entertain the election petition or a sufficient ground for recount unless further material facts are shown as to how the election of the winning candidate was materially affected, which is a pre- requisite for declaring his election as void." 29. These observations are fully applicable to the facts stated in the present petition as noticed earlier. The petition is wholly bereft of all the material facts. 30. Keeping the aforesaid settled positions of law in the forefront, if one examines the petition in the present case, it would be found to be lacking in all the material facts. It would also become apparent that the petition is nothing, but a request to make a fishing or a roving enquiry. No foundation whatsoever has been laid for seeking inspection of the ballot papers or the result sheets. The petitioner is not even certain of his case. The allegations are vague and indefinite. Even the margin of votes is given in rough estimates. At some stages of the petition, some booth numbers are mentioned. At no stage, any ballot paper has been identified. With regard to the complaints, allegedly made, it is to be noticed that no material facts about the same have been disclosed. It is not even stated as to whether the complaints were in writing or oral. The contents of the complaints made have not been disclosed. The allegations made in the petition which have been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment clearly deserve to be struck out being frivolous and vexatious. I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 2000/-. Petition dismissed.