V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ or in the nature of mandamus directing recounting of votes in respect of the election for the office of Chairperson of Adilabad Municipality held on 9. 3. 2000 and for a consequential direction to declare the petitioner if he secures highest number of votes than the other contested candidates by further declaring the election of the second respondent herein to the office of Chairperson of Adilabad Municipality as void. Though the petitioner has not specifically challenged the order dated 8. 8. 2001 in OP No. 9 of 2000 passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, the cause of action for filing this writ petition is the dismissal of the said election petition filed by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has filed only typed copy of the order in OP No. 9 of 2000 and has not annexed any other document or documents to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE election to the office of the Chairperson of the Adilabad Municipality was held on 9. 3. 2000. The petitioner along with respondents 2 to 13 contested the said election. The petitioner who claims to be the President of All India Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) alleges that though he got highest votes than other contesting candidates, respondent No. 16, who is the Election Officer and Municipal Commissioner declared the second respondent as elected by majority of 478 Votes. He alleges that respondent No. 16, declared him as elected and the same was published in newspapers like Hindu, Eenadu etc. According to the petitioner on 11. 3. 2000 counting took place in two rooms of Polytechnical College, Adilabad. Respondent No. 2 and his agents allegedly restores to many irregularities and even managed respondent No. 16. Respondent No. 2 and his agents removed ballot papers from the tables and placed them on the floor so that the petitioner and his agents could not observe the counting of votes. No rectification measures were taken by the Election Officer. The agents of respondent No. 2 instead of making 25 polled votes as one bundle made 13 to 20 polled votes as one bundle as if they contain 25 votes. In respect of the votes polled in favour of the petitioner, it is alleged the bundles were made consisting of more than 25 votes. The agents of respondent No. 2 instead of making 25 polled votes as one bundle made 13 to 20 polled votes as one bundle as if they contain 25 votes. In respect of the votes polled in favour of the petitioner, it is alleged the bundles were made consisting of more than 25 votes. After recounting is completed, surprisingly the second respondent was declared elected as Chairperson. ( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter filed OP No. 9 of 2000 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge and under Rules 1 and 2 of the A. P. Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the Rules ) alleging that at the time of counting bundle consisting of less than 25 votes of respondent No. 1 was counted as a bundle consisting of 25 votes, whereas in the case of petitioner though there were more than 25 votes in a bundle, the bundle was counted as a bundle of 25 votes and that the votes were counted not only on the table, but also on the floor where the respondent No. 2 and his men were permitted to be present and the petitioner and petitioner s agents were not permitted to observe the counting on the floor. He also alleged that the ballot boxes were tampered, that the counting officials with mala fide intention suppressed about 2,000 votes of petitioner by allowing irregularities with an intention to support respondent No. 2 and that the petitioner s request to the respondent No. 16 for recounting on the same day was rejected. He also alleged that on 12. 3. 2000 he filed a petition before the respondent Nos. 14 and 15 for recounting of votes whereupon respondent No. 15 directed him to file election petition. ( 4 ) THE election petition was opposed by the elected candidate (respondent No. 2) inter alia contending that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of counting, that he was elected by margin of 816 votes and that other allegations made in the election petition are not true. The election Tribunal examined PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A5 on behalf of the petitioner and RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondent. The election Tribunal examined PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A5 on behalf of the petitioner and RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondent. The election Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Narayanan v. Semmalai, AIR 1980 SC 206 and the judgment of this Court in T. Venkatarama Ready v. Kimidi Kala Venkata Rao, 2001 (3) ALD 358 , held that no case is made out for ordering recounting. The election Tribunal rejected the evidence of PWs. l and 3 as they are interested witnesses and also did not give much credence to Ex. A4 dated 12. 3. 2000 on the ground that it was filed before the District Collector, Adilabad, the fourteenth respondent herein, subsequent to announcement of the results of election in which a request for recounting was sought. In relation to oral evidence the learned Tribunal observed : upon considering rival contentions and as discussed already above by me in detail, except the biased statements of PWs. 2 to 4, there is no any such cogent evidence on record to prove the contention of the petitioner about the alleged irregularities in counting of votes for the election of Chairperson, Adilabad Municipality held on 11. 3. 2000 at S. G. Polytechnic College, Adilabad. Admittedly, at the time of said counting of votes candidates belonging to other parties, who contested the said elections were present along with their agents throughout the said counting of votes. But except the petitioner, none of them raised any objection for the alleged irregularities committed in counting of votes, nor the petitioner examined any one of them to prove his said contention about the alleged irregularities committed in counting of votes for the said election. Though the petitioner relied on news items published in Exs. A1 to A. 3 newspapers, the said publications in Exs. Al to A3 newspapers being hearsay-evidence, no credence can be given to the same. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as Ex. A4 is concerned, the Tribunal held as under: further, except the bald, self serving and biased statements of PWs. Though the petitioner relied on news items published in Exs. A1 to A. 3 newspapers, the said publications in Exs. Al to A3 newspapers being hearsay-evidence, no credence can be given to the same. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as Ex. A4 is concerned, the Tribunal held as under: further, except the bald, self serving and biased statements of PWs. 1 to 3, there is no any such cogent evidence on record to prove that the petitioner and his agents raised any objection with regard to the alleged irregularities committed in counting of votes before the Returning Officer, during the course of the said counting of votes and till the announcement of result. Admittedly, Ex. A4 petition was filed before the District Collector, Adilabad by the petitioner on 12. 3. 2000 subsequent to the announcement of result of election requesting for recounting of votes. As discussed already above by me, there is no whisper in Ex. A4 about the alleged irregularities. ( 6 ) AS noticed above, though the said order is not challenged a prayer is made seeking a direction to the official respondents to recount the votes. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gangaiah Naidu submits that the reasons for rejecting the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner before the election Tribunal are unsustainable. Further, he submits that on the next day after counting, Hindu daily newspaper reported that the petitioner was elected and therefore there was no necessity for making objection. At the time of arguments on the direction of this Court learned senior Counsel has placed a typed copy of Ex. A4. I have perused the same in which the petitioner made a bald allegation to the effect that he was not satisfied with the counting. No specific ground for seeking recounting was made. Be that as it may, the learned senior Counsel submits that the request contained in Ex. A4 is sufficient and respondent No. 14, ought to have ordered for recounting. I am afraid, I cannot agree with any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limini for reasons more than one. ( 7 ) BEFORE the election Tribunal as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner made allegation of irregularities committed by respondent No. 16 at the time of counting. ( 7 ) BEFORE the election Tribunal as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner made allegation of irregularities committed by respondent No. 16 at the time of counting. But, still he did not give any complaint while counting is going on. His allegations are, therefore, do not find any support from any contemporaneous document brought into existence. As rightly held by the election Tribunal PW1 is petitioner himself and PWs. 2 and 3 are his election agents and therefore their evidence is of not much help to the petitioner. Insofar as Ex. A4 is concerned, as noticed by me it does not contain specific details as to why the petitioner has well founded suspicion. A reading of Ex. A4 shows that it is only an after thought that the petitioner made such request. Indeed, in the election petition, he made allegation that bundles of votes consisting of less than 25 votes are counted as bundles of 25 votes in relation to respondent No. 2 whereas the bundles consisting of more than 25 votes in the case of the petitioner were counted as bundles of 25 votes. This allegation is conspicuous by its absence in Ex. A4. The petitioner appears to improve his case day after day and day by day. ( 8 ) FURTHER the election disputes are to be resolved by election Tribunal constituted for the purpose under the rules. When such Tribunal is entrusted with determination of facts and attaches finality to them, the finding of facts are to be treated as final and any error in the finding of facts cannot be treated as error apparent on the face of record for the purpose of judicial review. ( 9 ) IN this connection, a reference may be made to Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pennar Delta Ayacutdars Assn. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (3) ALD 715 (DB), wherein speaking for the Bench, I held: it is well settled that when taking a decision an administrator, depends on evaluation of facts, and applies the law to the facts. The decision-maker s choice and the finding recorded by such authority shall be treated as final unless it is grossly perverse and irrational. The decision-maker s choice and the finding recorded by such authority shall be treated as final unless it is grossly perverse and irrational. Further, the Courts in India have held that after appreciation of the facts, if there is a second view possible as per the Courts consideration, still the Courts cannot interfere with the decision on the ground that the conclusion reached by the decision-maker is not correct in the eyes of the Court . Even if there are two views possible, the decision-maker s finding on facts is treated as conclusive. If authority be required for these propositions which are so well established, we may refer to the dicta laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakub v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 . ( 10 ) THE next aspect of the matter is the prayer for recounting. It is well settled that relief of recounting of votes cannot be ordered in a routine manner and in all cases of all errors. In Narayanan s case (supra) it was held: finally, the entire case law on the subject regarding the circumstances under which recount could be ordered was fully summarised and catalogued by this Court in the Case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind (1975 Supp. SCR 202) to which one of us (Fazal AH, J.) was a party and which may be extracted thus:-"the Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where : (1) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) on the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) the Court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. " ( 11 ) IN P. K. K. Shamsudeen v. K. A. M. M. Mohindeen, AIR 1989 SC 640 , the Supreme Court referred to Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249 and Dr. " ( 11 ) IN P. K. K. Shamsudeen v. K. A. M. M. Mohindeen, AIR 1989 SC 640 , the Supreme Court referred to Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249 and Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 and Narayanan s case (supra) and scrutinised the settled position of law as under: 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 deprived 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 a sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidates able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a primafacie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes. ( 12 ) IN T. Penchalaiah v. Election Court, 1990 (1) ALT 669 , Jagannadha Rao, J. , (as his Lordship then was) reviewed the entire law in relation to recounting of votes in an election case. His Lordship divided the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject into four categories; (i) cases where allegations in election petitions are absolutely vague; (ii) cases where some details are given, but are not sufficient; (iii) cases where facts are given in great detail only for the purpose of satisfying the principles laid down by the Apex Court; and (iv) cases where the details given in the petition were held to be sufficient and truthful and also substantiated in the evidence. The learned Judge after referring to all the cases under four categories summarised the principles as under: material particulars have to be stated in the petition. What are material particulars differ from case to case, but general allegations of irregularities in counting can never furnish a ground for ordering a recount. A half-hearted or partial statement of material particulars may not also be a reason for the Court to order a recount even though it may, in certain circumstances, be sufficient for the Returning Officer to order recount. The petition must specify the material or basis on which his information is based on the record on he basis of which his counting agents have furnished him the information. The existence of any contemporaneous record of the filing of any application before the Returning Officer during the counting would lend support to the particulars stated in the petition. Mere furnishing of minute details so as to satisfy certain requirements of law as decided by the Courts cannot help unless material in support thereof is also set out in the petition. The Court must consider whether the petitioner could not have given other facts, such as the polling booth numbers or the round of counting, (emphasis supplied) ( 13 ) THE conduct of the petitioner at the time of recounting and other contemporaneous events as well as in the absence of documents at or about the time of or during recounting, and oral and documentary evidence adduced before the election Tribunal lead to conclusion that the petitioner did not make out any case for recounting the votes polled on 9. 3. 2000. The election Tribunal in OP No. 9 of 2000 applied correct principles of law and the same does not suffer from any error muchless grave error apparent on the face of the records warranting interference by this Court. ( 14 ) IN the result, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed.