L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O. P. No. 103 of 2001 dated 15-4-2003. ( 2 ) THE O. P. was filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, challenging the election of the petitioner as member of zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) Peddapudi of East Godavari district in the elections held on 15-7-2001. Through its order dated 15-4-2003, the Trial court had set aside the election of the petitioner and directed recounting of the polled votes. The petitioner contends that the order of the Trial Court is contrary to law and opposed to the facts. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to him, the Trial Court has misdirected itself in setting aside the election and thereafter directing recounting of votes. It is urged that not even an issue was framed as regards recounting of votes and simply by jumping to certain conclusions, it had set aside the election and directed recounting of votes. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that he had raised several grounds in challenging the election of the petitioner. It is stated that the Trial Court was satisfied that the corrupt practices pleaded in the election petition, or at least some of them were proved and thereby the election is set aside. The grant of relief of recounting is claimed to be consequent on setting aside the elections. ( 5 ) SRI Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had made vague alegations in the election petition and did not even plead a case for recounting, much less, for setting aside the elections. According to him, recounting is a step, which can be undertaken by the Trial Court only on being satisfied on the basis of definite pleadings and cogent evidence, and at any rate it cannot be a step after setting aside the election. So far as setting aside of the election is concerned, he submits that an election can be set aside if only, the corrupt practices or other important grounds as provided for under the relevant rules are pleaded and established on evidence and the question of setting aside the election without framing issues, much less without recording findings thereon, does not arise. ( 6 ) SRI V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Trial Court has taken a comprehensive view of the pleadings as well as the evidence on record and on being satisfied that the corrupt practices pleaded against the petitioner are proved, it had set aside the election. According to him, the Trial Court had directed recounting of the votes so that there does not exist any vacuum in the office, and this relief was in response to a specific prayer by the 2nd respondent. ( 7 ) IN the elections held on 15-7-2001, the writ petitioner was elected as member of zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC), Peddapudi of East Godavari District. The allegation against the petitioner was that he has threatened the 2nd respondent and his agents from canvassing in Peddapudi village. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not permit free exercise of franchise by the voters and at the instance of the petitioner and his agents, large scale rigging has taken place. The sharp increase of the percentage of polling during the last hour from 46% to 86% is pleaded as one of the factors. The further allegation is as regards the failure of the Election Officer in undertaking recounting, even though the difference between the successful candidate and the next candidate was less than 1%. ( 8 ) IN support of his contentions, the 2nd respondent has examined himself as P. W. 1 and P. Ws. 2 to 6 and marked exs. A. 1 to A. 5. The writ petitioner examined himself as R. W. 3. In addition to examining r. Ws. 1 and 2, he has marked documents exs. B. 1 to B. 12. After discussing the evidence and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties the trial court passed the order to the following effect. "in the result this petition is partly allowed setting aside the election of R-4 as ZPTC representing the Peddapudi ZPTC constituency by directing recounting of all polled votes as per procedure. In the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear their respective costs. " ( 9 ) THE relief granted by the Trial court is two fold. It has set aside the election of the writ petitioner and directed recounting of the votes. In the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear their respective costs. " ( 9 ) THE relief granted by the Trial court is two fold. It has set aside the election of the writ petitioner and directed recounting of the votes. It is settled principle of law that the verdict of an electorate has to be honoured by everybody, including the Court unless it is established that it was vitiated on account of the factors which are specifically stipulated under the relevant provisions of law. It is only when a definite plea is raised that an elected candidate has resorted to any corrupt practices or that his election vitiated on account of the factors stipulated under the relevant rules; and evidence is adduced to establish such allegations, that election can be interfered with. The proof required to record a finding on corrupt practices is required to be that of quasi criminal, in nature. ( 10 ) TO record a finding that an elected candidate has resorted to a corrupt practice or that his election is vitiated on any other ground, specific issue has to be framed by the Election Tribunal and evidence has to be adduced pointedly on the issue. General allegations and evidence not directed towards any specific issue can never constitute the basis for an Election tribunal (Trial Court) to set aside the election of a successful candidate. From a reading of the order of the Trial Court, it is evident that neither any issues were framed nor any definite findings were recorded that the writ petitioner has resorted to any corrupt practices. The findings are too general in nature. Even if they are taken on their face value they cannot constitute the basis to set aside an election. For example, the allegation of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not permit himself and his agents to canvass or distribute the voter slips in Peddapudi village was treated as a factor for setting aside the election. The finding recorded by the Court below on this allegation is as under: "therefore, I am of the considered opinion that due to the action of R-1 to R-3, the petitioner suffered loss of election in its result. The finding recorded by the Court below on this allegation is as under: "therefore, I am of the considered opinion that due to the action of R-1 to R-3, the petitioner suffered loss of election in its result. " ( 11 ) THE allegation that a reporter of a tv Channel was prevented from recording the polling was treated as a factor to hold that the polling was not open. The sharp increase of the polling from 46% to 86% during the last hour was treated as a factor "which affected the result of the petitioner". The petitioner was held to have proved the contention that there was irregularity in counting on the ground that the instructions issued by the Election authority to order recounting where the percentage of difference between the successful and immediate next candidate is 1% was held to be a ground for recounting. ( 12 ) THE only point that it framed is as under:"now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to set aside the election of R-4 as ZPTC member representing the Peddapudi ZPTC Constituency and declare the petitioner as duly elected representing the said ZPTC constituency as sought for?" ( 13 ) THIS Court is constrained to observe that the Court below has totally misdirected itself. It did not even care to frame the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. It is ununderstandable as to how the Trial Court thought that it can adjudicate upon the election petition that too where corrupt practices are pleaded, and irregularities are alleged; without framing issues on such aspects. The evidence could not have been specific on any aspect, unless any issue was framed. The drastic relief of setting aside the election of a successful candidate was granted on undertaking a superficial discussion and recording findings, which are neither germane nor relevant. It is not as if every irregularity even if said to have been committed would constitute the basis for setting aside an election. Rule 12 (d) of the Election Tribunals in respect of Gram panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla parishads Rules 1995 (G. O. Ms. No. 156, dated 3-5-2000) mandates that it is only when an established irregularity had substantially affected the result of the election that the election can be interfered with. ( 14 ) RECOUNTING is also not a matter of course. No. 156, dated 3-5-2000) mandates that it is only when an established irregularity had substantially affected the result of the election that the election can be interfered with. ( 14 ) RECOUNTING is also not a matter of course. The election petitioner is required to make out a specific case with reference to the irregularities that have crept into the process of polling or counting. It is only when a definite plea is taken and cogent evidence is adduced and a case is made out for ordering recounting, such a relief can be granted. The order of the trial court does not conform to any settled principles of law. The same is accordingly set aside. ( 15 ) INASMUCH as this order is the outcome of the failure of the duty of the trial Court in framing the issues and in undertaking the trial as provided for in law, the 2nd respondent cannot be penalised for that. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Trail Court for fresh disposal. It is directed that the Trial Court shall frame issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and record evidence, if adduced by the respective parties, once again. The matter shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 16 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.