Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Secs. 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (In short the Act) challenging the election of the returned candidate, namely, Sitaram Yadav. Respondent No. 1, from 75 Harlakhi Assembly Constituency in the last election of Bihar Legislative Assembly held in the year 2000. 2. The petitioner was one of the contesting candidates in the election in question and besides him there were eleven other contesting candidates whose names appear in paragraph-6 of the election petition itself and they have also been made party respondents in the present case. The Sub-Divisional Officer of Jainagar, Sub-Division was appointed /returning Officer in the election in question and as per Notification of Election Commission of India dated 12th January, 2000, election in Bihar was held with the following programmes: (i) Last date of filing Nomination paper - 3-2-2000 (ii) Date of scrutiny of Nomination papers - 4-2-2000 (iii) Last date for withdrawal of candidature - 7-2-2000 (iv) Date of Poll-22-2-2000 3. The candidature of the petitioner and the other respondents in the present case were found to be proper on scrutiny of their Nomination papers as required under the law. Polling was held on 22-2-2000 and re-polling was held in respect of only one Booth namely, Booth No. 185 on 24-2-2000. The counting of Ballot papers started from the morning hours of 25-2-2000 in two rooms of R. K. College, Madhubani, and concluded on 26-2-2000 and final result was declared on 26-2-2000 declaring respondent No. 1 as an elected candidate in the election in question. The election petitioner, as per the result-sheet, received 34, 421 votes while the respondent No. 1 Sitaram Yadav, the elected candidate, received 36, 955 votes and the number of votes received by other candidates who are respondents in the present case have also been mentioned categorically and specifically in paragraph-10 of the election petition. The margin of votes between the Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was narrow and to the extent of only 534 votes. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no proper counting of ballots and there were commission of several irregularities/illegalities in the counting of ballot papers, the details of which have been mentioned in Paragraph-11 of the election petition. The irregularities/illegalities claimed from the side of the petitioner were of the following nature: 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no proper counting of ballots and there were commission of several irregularities/illegalities in the counting of ballot papers, the details of which have been mentioned in Paragraph-11 of the election petition. The irregularities/illegalities claimed from the side of the petitioner were of the following nature: 4. That about 1594 ballots paper which were counted in favour of respondent No. 1 were fit to be rejected as there were inherent defects in those ballots and those ought to have been rejected and according to the election petitioner, such illegal acceptance of 1594 ballot papers in favour of respondent No. 1 has materially affected the result of the election and those ballots, namely, 1594 ballots pertain to Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 and were counted in 7th and 8th round of counting respectively. The first ground of illegality was that there were inherent and intrinsic defects on those ballots bearing no signatures of the Presiding Officers of the respective Booths and lacking in respect of distinguishing marks of the Booths concerned. The second ground of illegality was that the counter-foil of the aforesaid ballot papers did not bear the signatures of the genuine voters. The third ground was that in respect of the total number of ballots of Booth No. 200, almost all the votes had been received by the respondent No. 1 and same is the position in respect of Booth Nos. 201 and 175. The fourth and the last ground of illegality urged from the side of the election petitioner was that the voting pattern in respect of those 1594 ballots were so same and similar by putting the seals on the middle of the symbol of respondent No. 1 which can presume the fact that those votings were not done by individual genuine voters but being done either by the same person or by a same machinery. 5. It is also the contention of the election petitioner in paragraph-12 of the election petition that, although, objections were raised regarding such irregularities illegalities as mentioned above at the time of counting before the Returning Officer not only by the petitioner or his election agent but also by other candidates, but all proved futile. 5. It is also the contention of the election petitioner in paragraph-12 of the election petition that, although, objections were raised regarding such irregularities illegalities as mentioned above at the time of counting before the Returning Officer not only by the petitioner or his election agent but also by other candidates, but all proved futile. It is submitted further that if those illegal ballots numbering in 1594 are construed to be invalid votes then from the pattern of the voting and the receipt of votes by the petitioner it is clear that the majority of valid votes had been received by the election petitioner and he should have won the election by a large margin of votes and there would not be the meagre margin of 534 votes between him and the respondent No. 1. Thus, the election petitioner sought two relieves in the case. Firstly, inspection of ballots of Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 and then on rejection of illegal ballots/votes the petitioner should be declared as an elected candidate setting aside the election of the respondent No. 1. 6. The election petition has been contested not only by the respondent No. 1, the elected candidate but also by respondent No. 2, Ram Naresh Thakur by filing written statement, although, it appears that at the later stage during the course of trial respondent No. 2 did not appear for cross-examination of the witnesses nor any evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent No. 2. But the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that he supports the Election petitioners case in toto and as such he has not adduced further evidence on his behalf in the case. The main contest in the case is by respondent No. 1. 7. Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 has also filed their separate written statements and their positions are also the same as that of respondent No. 2. In the written statement filed by them they have supported the case of the election petitioner. But they did not take part during the adjudication of the election petition. 8. In his written statement the respondent No. 1 has denied all the allegations made in the election petition. His first contention was that the election petition is not maintainable u/s. 97 of the Act and the same is being hit by Secs. But they did not take part during the adjudication of the election petition. 8. In his written statement the respondent No. 1 has denied all the allegations made in the election petition. His first contention was that the election petition is not maintainable u/s. 97 of the Act and the same is being hit by Secs. 81, 82 and 83 of the Act together with Order-VII Rule 11 CPC. There is also objection regarding the deposit made as contemplated under Sections 117/118 of the Act. Denial has been made in the written statement by respondent No. 1 para-wise of the election petition and the vital points of allegations raised in paragraph-11 of the election petition has been denied specifically in paragraphs-9, 10 and 11 of the written statement. 9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed vide order dated 14-11 -2000. Issues:- -(i) Whether the election petition as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed for non -compliance of the Mandatory provision of Secs. 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of People Act, 1951? (iii) Whether the election petition is fit to be rejected at the outset as there are non-compliance of sec. 83 read with sec. 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order-VI Rule 10 CPC? (iv) Whether the election petition petitioner is entitled to get any benefit as per allegation made that 1594 invalid ballots have been granted in favour of respondent No. 1 pertaining to Booth Nos. 200, 201 and 175? (v) Whether the election petitioner is entitled to any relief, if so, to what extent? 10. It may be mentioned here that the respondent No. 1 before filing of the written statement had filed a petition u/s. 87 of the Act challenging the maintainability of the election petition itself. It was also pressed that such maintainability matter should be considered at the very outset before going on for trial/adjudication of the election petition. There was also a recreminatory petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and against both these petitioners the election petitioner had filed his rejoinders. It was also pressed that such maintainability matter should be considered at the very outset before going on for trial/adjudication of the election petition. There was also a recreminatory petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and against both these petitioners the election petitioner had filed his rejoinders. It appears from the records that respondent No. 2 also went on the same line as that of the election petitioner challenging both the recreminatory petition and the maintainability petition filed u/s. 87 of the Act by the respondent No. 1. The maintainability matter as contemplated under Issue No. (iii) was heard as a preliminary issue on extensive arguments being placed by the parties to the proceeding and vide order dated 14-9-2001 this Court held the issue in the affirmative in favour of the election petitioner rejecting the plea of non-maintainability raised from the side of the Respondent No. 1. This order dated 14-9-2001 was challenged by filing SLP before the Apex Court but ultimately such SLP was rejected before the Apex Court. 11. In support of the case of both the parties several witnesses have been examined. For and on behalf of the election petitioner six witnesses have been examined. They are PW 1, Shailendra Sharma who happened to be the counting Agent of the election petitioner in Table No. 10, Hall No. 1 and in his table ballots of Booth No. 175 were counted. He supported the case of the election petitioner in respect of lacking of signature of the Presiding Officer and also with regard to lack of distinguishing marks on the ballot papers of that Both. He has also supported the case of the election petitioner that the marking of the ballots were in such a manner that there was clear presumption that such ballots were marked either by a machine or by the same person and not by the individual voters. He has also stated that out of the total ballots of that Booth namely, 680 votes, 678 have been counted in favour of the Respondent No. 1. In his cross-examination he had to admit that he had no scope to verify the ballot papers as those were in the hands of the counting persons and also admitted that the seal and signature of the Presiding Officer were on the upper portion of the ballots. In his cross-examination he had to admit that he had no scope to verify the ballot papers as those were in the hands of the counting persons and also admitted that the seal and signature of the Presiding Officer were on the upper portion of the ballots. So, he had practically deviated from his examination-in-chief in his cross-examination. PW 2 Shri Ram Pravesh Pandey is also another counting agent of the election petitioner who was at Table No. 15. According to him ballots of Booth No. 175 was counted in the 13th round of counting in his table and according to him out of total numbers of ballots of 547 of that booth except one vote enbloc voting was done in favour of respondent No. 1 and counted accordingly. Similarly he has deposed in respect of Booth No. 200 also wherein out of 679 ballots all were counted in favour of respondent No. 1 besides one vote which was found to be doubtful and afterwards being rejected. He has also given evidence to the effect that the election petitioner had contested the election as CPI candidates while the return candidate respondent No. 1 was from RJD. He has not deposed on any other point. In the cross-examination he further stated that when enbloc voting was made in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the two booths as mentioned he raised objection for recounting but the same had been turned down. PW 3 is Ram Naresh Pandey who happens to be the election petitioner in this case. He had supported the election petition almost in all points. His main thrust was also in respect of enbloc voting in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of Booth Nos. 200, 201 and 175, According to him 1, 594 ballots from those booths as mentioned above were having no seal and signatures of the Presiding Officers of the distinguishing marks of the booths. Regarding the pattern of votings by putting seal on the middle of the symbol he has expressed doubts about the genuinity of those ballots. 200, 201 and 175, According to him 1, 594 ballots from those booths as mentioned above were having no seal and signatures of the Presiding Officers of the distinguishing marks of the booths. Regarding the pattern of votings by putting seal on the middle of the symbol he has expressed doubts about the genuinity of those ballots. He has said that he raised oral and written objection but his objection was turned down and no enquiry was made but it should be mentioned here that nothing documentary has been proved from the side of the election petitioner that any written objection was ever filed before the Returning Officer nor it was his case in election petition. PW 4 Din Bandhu Mishra was also another counting agent of the election petitioner. He was in Table No. 9. He deposed about Booth No. 201 and according to him except a single vote which was rejected enbloc 374 votes had been counted in favour of the respondent. He also said that none of the ballots were having signature of the Presiding Officer and the distinuishing mark of the booth. He also deposed by expressing his doubts about the genuineness of the votes as to the pattern of voting by putting seal on the middle of the symbol uniformly Suggestions were put to this witness regarding the genuinity of the votes cast in favour of the respondent No. 1. PW 5, Kapil Deo Mahto is another counting agent of the election petitioner at the Central Table. He has deposed only in respect of the pattern of the votes in respect of ballots of Booth No. 201 and expressed his doubt regarding the genuinity of those votes as he stated that he had an impression that sealing was done on the ballets either by one person or by a punching machine. He has not deposed on any other point. PW 6 Kulanand Thakur is an Advocate of the Civil Court and he happens to be the election agent of the petitioner. He had supported the allegation made in the election petitioner. His main thrust is on the pattern of voting by putting seal in the uniform manner on the middle of the symbol of the respondent No. 1. 12. For and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as many as 13 witnesses have been examined. Out of them DW1 Ganga Pd. His main thrust is on the pattern of voting by putting seal in the uniform manner on the middle of the symbol of the respondent No. 1. 12. For and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as many as 13 witnesses have been examined. Out of them DW1 Ganga Pd. Yadav, DW2, Bishundeo Yadav, DW 3 Raj Kumar Ram, DW4, Jagdish Yadav, DW5 Fekan Sahney, D.W. 6 Muketeshwar Yadav, P.W. 7 Dilip Kumar Yadav and DW 8 Dinesh Prasad are the voters of the Assembly Constituency whose election has been impugned in this case. They were the voters of either of those three booths whose ballots and genuinity thereof are being questioned by the election petitioner in the present case. They have stated that there was no irregularity in the ballots of those booths. When they went to cast their votes they found the ballots having proper seal and signature of the Presiding Officer and the distinuishing mark of the booth on the back side of the ballots and after putting signature on the counter-foil they took the ballot paper and then put the seal on the symbol of the candidate to whom they wanted to cast their votes and then dropped in the ballot box accordingly. They have denied all the allegations that no genuine votes had been cast or that there was any trouble in those booths, such as booth capturing etc. and voting was peaceful. The allegation brought from the side of the election petitioner had been put to the mouth of those witnesses and they have denied in toto all the allegations. DW 9 Sita Ram Yadav is the respondent No. 1. He has denied all the allegations regarding irregularity/illegality in the counting of votes as raised from the side of the election petitioner. He has given explanation to the Court as to how he could get enbloc votes in respect of Booths Nos. 175,200 and 201. According to him in Booth No. 200 the total voters were 708 out of which 680 votes had been actually polled and except one vote being rejected he has received 679 votes. He has also admitted the same position in respect of Booth No. 201 and according to him he got enbloc votes in those booths as because the voters were either his co-villagers or of contiguous village. He has also admitted the same position in respect of Booth No. 201 and according to him he got enbloc votes in those booths as because the voters were either his co-villagers or of contiguous village. He has also said that in some of the booths he did not receive a single vote rather enbloc votes have been made in favour of the petitioner but he did not raise objection in respect of such enblocking votes in favour of the election petitioner. He has also said that no objection was raised at any point of time by the election petitioner or his election agent or counting agent during the course of counting but only after the result was declared seeing the margin of votes on the lower side, after making table work, the election petition has been filed with concocted, manufactured ground. DW 10 Badrul Haque happens to be the election agent of respondent No. 1 and according to him there was no objection at any point of time by any of the candidates including the election petitioner or their election agents or counting agents during the course of counting. Although a lengthy cross-examination was made to this witness but the election petition petitioner could not be able to make the witness break or bulge an inch from his examination-in- chief. DW 11 Sanjay Lal Yadav happens to be the counting agent of the respondent No. 1 at Table No. 10 in Room No. 1. According to him counting was made in his table regarding ballots of Booth Nos. 101, 175, 26, 200 and 207 and that no objections were raised by any of the counting agent of other candidates including that of the petitioner regarding the counting of ballots of Booth No. 175 or 200. DW 12 Anwar Hussain is an Executive Magistrate and he was the Assistant Returning Officer of the election of 75 Harlakha Assembly Consistency in the year 2000. He has stated that polling and counting was peaceful in respect of all the booths except one wherein there was repelling. By referring to the diary of the Returning Officer he stated that polling in Booth No. 175, 200 and 201 were done peacefully and there was no irregularity or illegality during the course of polling. He said that at his instance the ballots papers of Booth Nos. By referring to the diary of the Returning Officer he stated that polling in Booth No. 175, 200 and 201 were done peacefully and there was no irregularity or illegality during the course of polling. He said that at his instance the ballots papers of Booth Nos. 175 and 201 were being considered at the central table and he tallied with Form No. 16 of those booths and found the same alright and after the counting was complete when the margin of difference between the two candidates i.e. The election petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was found to be within 5% of the votes then he took permission from the Election Commissioner of India before publication of the result and after that permission being granted the results were published. This witness has also been cross-examined at length, but nothing could be brought out from his mouth in favour of the election petitioner. Then only suggestions were put to this official witness that he was in collusion with the respondent No. 1 in getting him declared winner. DW 13 Sukhdeo Prasad is the Circle Officer of Gopalganj at present and at the relevant time he was at Madhubani and he was also another Assistant Returning Officer and he deposed also about the impugned ballots of Booth No. 200 in the same line as that of the DW 12. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought out in favour of the election petitioner. 13. In this case it appears that none of the parties had exhibited any document in the case. After the argument was over a petition has been filed by the election petitioner for marking exhibits of some official documents. When those documents had never been exhibited during the course of trial, I am not in a position to mark exhibits at this stage but if those documents from the nature are found to be public documents then those can be looked into without even being marked as exhibits for the purpose of coming to a just decision in the case. Much stress has been made in this respect to consider the order-sheet of the Returning Officer during the course of counting of the ballots. Much stress has been made in this respect to consider the order-sheet of the Returning Officer during the course of counting of the ballots. The stress is on the point that such order-sheets reveal a fact that at some point of time some objection was raised by the election petitioner and on consideration of the contents of the objection the Returning Officer had rejected the same. This has been done only with a specific purpose from the side of the election petition to show that although alongwith the election petition or at any point of time during the adjudication no copy of the objection was filed or called for of the original but from the order-sheet it reveals that written objection was filed at some point of time. No where in the election petition anything has been stated regarding any written objection and nothing has been stated about the contents of such written objection. In that way even if and written objection has been filed that may not be concerned with the allegations being brought by the election petitioner in the election petition in support of it unless the copy of that written objection is produced. Be it what it may I am not going much on this as the order-sheet of the Returning Officer is a public document, the same has been properly looked into by this Court while construing the arguments placed for and on behalf of the election petitioner. Even if any written objection was there by the Election petitioner relating to the allegation raised, then also the matter does not make much difference except that of non-diluting of the allegation to some extent. 14. It has already been mentioned earlier that as a preliminary issue the maintainability matter had already been considered by this Court in issue No. 3 and order had been passed on 14-9-2001 holding the election petition maintainable and not hit by sec. 83 (1) of the Act and also not being invalidated under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That order of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court the SLP had been rejected therein. So the decision of Issue No. 3 has become final. That order of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court the SLP had been rejected therein. So the decision of Issue No. 3 has become final. Now the other issues are to be decided and I will take up the matter issuewise for discussion and decision. The evidence of the witnesses of both sides shall be referred to in the course of discussion of the issues wherever it would be necessary, Decisions and reasons thereof. Issue No. 2. 15. Although a vague statement has been made in the written statement to the effect that the election petition is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 but no details have been given. sec. 81 of the Act deals as to how the election petition is to be presented by the election petitioner before this Court When the election petition was filed on 10-4-2000 then Hon ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sahay was nominated as a Judge as required under the Act as per provisions of sec. 80-A and the election petition was presented personally by the election petitioner before His Lordship which is revealed from the wordings of the order dated 10-4-2000. The election petition was also accompanied by the copies required to be served on the respondents and also security deposit of Rs. 2000.00 had been made and on acceptance of the election petition the same was sent to the office for proper stamp reporting. After the retirement of Hon ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sahay, this Bench has been empowered under the Act as mentioned above to try the election petition and hence, the election petition came to this Bench and further proceedings have been conducted by this Bench and in that way, provisions of sec. 81 of the Act has been properly complied with. Similarly, it appears that sec. 82 of the Act has already been complied with regarding parties to the election petition. In the present case two reliefs have been claimed for and on behalf of the election petitioner. Firstly in respect of inspection of the ballots of three booths, namely, Booth Nos. 81 of the Act has been properly complied with. Similarly, it appears that sec. 82 of the Act has already been complied with regarding parties to the election petition. In the present case two reliefs have been claimed for and on behalf of the election petitioner. Firstly in respect of inspection of the ballots of three booths, namely, Booth Nos. 200, 201 and 175 and also for a further relief of setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 and declare the election petitioner to be an elected one and in that way, in view of the reliefs being claimed all the candidates who had contested the fray had been made respondents in the case. In that way, sec. 82 has also been properly complied with. Sec. 117 of the Act provides for deposit of security cost at the time of filing of the election petition. From the very first order dated 10-4-2000 it appears that security deposit of Rs. 2,000.00 had already been made at the time of filing of election petition and, as such, there is proper compliance of Sec. 117 of the Act. In that way, there is no force in the objections being raised from the side of the election petitioner to the effect that the provisions of Secs. 81, 82 and 117 had not been complied with rather as per discussions made above those provisions have been complied with in toto. Hence, the issue is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the election petitioner. Issue No. 3. 16. As stated above, this issue had already been decided vice order dated 14-9-2001 and although challenged before the Apex Court but such decision made vide order dated 14-9-2001 had reached its finality. Issue No. 1. 17. In view of the decisions of issue No. 2 and issue No. 3 as mentioned above, this issue is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the election petition. Issue No. 4. 18. This is the vital issue, decision of which shall decide the fate of the election petition itself. The main relief claimed by the election petitioner is for inspection of the ballots of Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 on the allegation that the total number of ballots polled in these three booths amounting to 1594 were all invalid votes and those have been counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. The main relief claimed by the election petitioner is for inspection of the ballots of Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 on the allegation that the total number of ballots polled in these three booths amounting to 1594 were all invalid votes and those have been counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thus the grievance of the petitioner remains regarding irregularity in polling in those booths with respect to the ballots papers and also illegality in counting of those ballots in favour of respondent No. 1. Before going into the factual aspects and the specific and individual allegations being made from the side of the election petitioner and rebutted from the side of the respondent No. 1, first of all, at must be stated that cardinal principle established behind allowance or rejection of the prayer of inspection of ballot papers. Inspection of ballots paper cannot be ordered as a matter of ordinary course only because some allegations have been brought regarding the counting of ballots. In democratic set up secrecy of ballots is of paramount importance and in such circumstances, in maintaining secrecy of ballots, inspection of ballots cannot be ordered on vague allegations alone. The allegation must be of such nature being supported by contemporary evidence which must appeal to the Tribunal or the Judge concerned that if such allegations on inspection are found to be true then it may go into variation of the election result itself then and then only inspection of ballots can be ordered. There are various judgments on this principles as enunciated by the Apex Court. Reference may be made to 1964 (SC) 1249 (Ram Sewak Yadav V/s. H.K. Kidwai) wherein it has been held that mere allegation that the petitioner had doubt suspicion to the effect that there was improper receiption refusal of votes would not be sufficient to support an order of inspection of ballots. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments also, such as, 1975 (SC) 2117 (Vari V/s. Sheo Govind and Ors.) and 1975 (SC) 2182 (Ram Awtar Singh V/s. Ram Gopal Singh and Ors.). Two grounds for grant of inspection of ballots have been elaborated and discussed in 1964 (SC) (sic). The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments also, such as, 1975 (SC) 2117 (Vari V/s. Sheo Govind and Ors.) and 1975 (SC) 2182 (Ram Awtar Singh V/s. Ram Gopal Singh and Ors.). Two grounds for grant of inspection of ballots have been elaborated and discussed in 1964 (SC) (sic). The grounds or the allegations brought must be of such a nature that the Court must be satisfied at least prima facie not being proved to the hilt that there is illegal/irregular reception/rejection of ballot papers during the course of counting, and on that point only giving gobye to the paramount importance of secrecy of ballots, inspection of ballots can be ordered for maintaining the sanctity of the opinion or the verdict of the electors in the democratic set up. Thus, in the light of such position of the principle of law, the present case is to be decided for the purpose of ordering of inspection of ballot papers in respect of three booths alone. 19. As the very outset, it must be mentioned that the election petitioner had never challenged the counting of ballots with regard to other polling booths except that of the three booths as mentioned above. Some sort of presumption and table work could be very well smacked at the very outset when allegations have been made putting a surmising words "about". In paragraph 11 of the election petition at the very outset the election petitioner has mentioned that there was illegal/irregular receipt of ballots of about 1,594 ballots in favour of respondent No. 1. So at the very beginning the petitioner started his allegation with a surmise or an expression of doubt in his mind and from such surmising, as would be elaborated at a later stage, it would appear that the election petitioner was not even firm about the veracity of his own allegations. Thus, total number of ballots amounting to 1,594 make the total of ballots counted in favour of respondent No. 1 with regard to Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 because almost enbloc votes of these booths have been counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. 20. The first ground of irregularity and illegality is that those ballot papers did not bear the signature and seal of the Presiding Officers at the back side of it nor even the distinutshing mark of the booth concerned. 175, 200 and 201 because almost enbloc votes of these booths have been counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. 20. The first ground of irregularity and illegality is that those ballot papers did not bear the signature and seal of the Presiding Officers at the back side of it nor even the distinutshing mark of the booth concerned. On this matter vague evidence had been adduced from the side of the election petitioner through his election agents and the counting agent where the ballots of those booths have been counted. On the other hand, the respondent has adduced evidence of similar counting agent denying the allegations. Neither of the parties have brought the Presiding Officer or the Polling agents, who were present in those booths at the time of polling, to adduce evidence in this respect. It has been mentioned in the election petition and also in evidence that oral objections were raised before the Presiding Officer of such defect in the ballots papers but the same had been turned down by the Returning Officer and nowhere it was there in the election petition that at any point of time written objection was filed but at the time of evidence the election agent and the candidate (PW 3) had deposed that they had filed written objection also. But what was the contents of that objections had not been elaborated. In this respect, as already been mentioned above, reference has been made to the order-sheet of the Returning Officer but such order-sheet does not disclose as to what type of objections were being raised from the side of the election petitioner or his agent. In that sense the whole allegations remains a vague one. On the face of the evidence of both the parties when large number of voters had been examined, who had cast their votes in those booths and they have stated that the ballots were totally alright but not a single voter from the side of the election petitioner had been brought to prove such fact. On the face of the evidence of both the parties when large number of voters had been examined, who had cast their votes in those booths and they have stated that the ballots were totally alright but not a single voter from the side of the election petitioner had been brought to prove such fact. In this respect, Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 may be referred to wherein under Sub-rule 2 (h) the duty has been cost upon the Returning Officer to reject a ballot paper which does not bear the mark and signature which ought to have been there under Sub-rule 1 of the Rule 38 but there is proviso to the effect that the Returning Officer can count those ballots also having no distinguishing mark or seal and signature of the Presiding Officer if he was satisfied that due to mistake and failure on the part of the Presiding Officer or Polling Officer such thing had happened to give paramount importance to the verdict of the voter. But in the present case nothing substantive could be proved in this respect from the side of the election petitioner. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. S.N.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the the petitioner, that allegations have been brought and some evidence have been given to that effect by some of the counting agents although there is rebuttal from the side of the respondents then this Court can make a sample survey to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations being brought before passing an order on inspection. I am not at all convinced with such submission. On going through the order-sheet of the Presiding Officer nowhere it could be found that any such allegations were ever brought from the side of the election petitioner before him and the election petitioner remained silent regarding filing of specific written objection. Thus it could be very well presumed, as has been submitted from the side of the respondents Counsel that such sort of allegations have been brought only as an after thought for the purpose of filing of this election alone. Thus, on this score, I could not find any sufficient ground for ordering of inspection of ballots of those three booths. 21. Thus, on this score, I could not find any sufficient ground for ordering of inspection of ballots of those three booths. 21. The second allegation brought is that the counter-foil of those ballots did not bear the signature of the genuine voters. This allegation remains only as an allegation from the side of the election petitioner. Not a single voter had been produced from the side of the election petitioner to show that he has been debarred from casting votes as somebody else had cast vote in his name. On the other hand, respondents side had brought sufficient number of voters who had stated categorically that they had cast their votes by putting their signature on the counter-foil of the ballot papers. The evidence of those eight witnesses from the side of the respondent No. 1 could not be assailed from the side of the election petitioner. So clearly it remains that the allegations on this score brought from the side of the election petitioner not only remains unproved but contrary being proved to some extent. The election agent and the election petitioner had stated vagully but they failed to give the source of information as they have not stated about their personal knowledge. In that way, such evidence of election petitioner and his election agent remained inadmissible in evidence. 22. The third allegation is vital allegation on which much hammering has been made from the side of the election petitioner basing on the Hand Book of instructions to the Returning Officer issued by the Election Commission of India. It remains an admitted fact that almost all the votes in these three booths had been found to have been cast in favour of respondent No. 1 and were counted so. There were instructions to Returning Officers that in such sort of cases where the total votes of the maximum number of votes are found to be cast in favour of a particular candidate then those ballots should have been kept in abeyance till it could be found that in respect of other booths if the candidate concerned could have secured maximum votes than others. But in the present case, the same has not been done by the Returning Officer and, as such, it has been stated that not only irregularity but illegality has been committed from the side of the Returning Officer and, hence, on this ground alone the election petition should be allowed to the extent of inspection of the ballots of these three booths. At the very outset objections were raised regarding legal force of such instructions and validity thereof. Mr. S.N.P. Sharma by referring to the case of Nawal Kishore Shahi V/s. Vivekananda Giril, (reported in 1983 ELR Vol. LXXIV page 1) of this High Court has submitted that this point was raised as to the statutory force of such instructions. In that case some instructions issued to Returning Officer regarding scrutiny of the nomination paper was the subject matter and it was held by this Court that such instructions shall have the force regarding scruting of the nomination paper itself. The reported case, as mentioned above, dealt with illegal rejection of nomination papers and some instructions given by the Election Commission of India had not been properly adhered to by the Returning Officer while acting under the different provisions of the Act. But the present case is an different footing. Here in the present case, there is specific instructions under the Rules of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 u/s. 56 as to how and in what manner the Returning Officer is to Act for rejection and acceptance of ballots. When there are provisions under the Act and the Rules framed thereof as being framed under the provisions of Constitution of India then violation of any such rules would definitely construe to be an illegality but violation of any instruction cannot have the legal force unless it could be shown that such instructions were necessary to fill up any lacuna which was absent in framing of the Rules or the provisions of the Act. But from Rule 56 it is clear as to on what grounds and under what circumstances ballots are to be rejected and accepted. In that way instructions given cannot have any statutory force as it does not come in aid to any absentee provisions in the Rules. But from Rule 56 it is clear as to on what grounds and under what circumstances ballots are to be rejected and accepted. In that way instructions given cannot have any statutory force as it does not come in aid to any absentee provisions in the Rules. Moreover, the instructions, as have been given, if read as a whole it is found to be of an advisory nature and such advisory/directory provisions cannot be construed to be an enforcing instruction itself, violation of which may create adverse effect on the action or the result of the election itself. Moreover, it appears from the result sheet that the election petitioner is totally silent about instructions in respect of the two booths where the election petitioner had got maximum number of votes but very peculiarly he remained silent about those booths viz Booth No. 100 and Booth No. 108 where it is very clear that in Booth No. 100 out of total number of 330 votes, the election petitioner Ram Naresh Pandey received 304 votes and only nominal votes such as three (3) have been received by Ram Sankar Thakur and 19 by respondent No. 1 Sita Ram Yadav. Similarly, in Booth No. 108 out of total number of 640 votes, the election petitioner got 636 votes and Ram Sewak Thakur received three votes only. But there is total suppression of these facts in the election petition or in the evidence itself. If that instructions are to be construed to have statutory force then the same should be applicable in respect of these two booths also which goes in advantageous position to the election petitioner but very artistically the-election petitioner remained silent on this point. This advantageous position and on such features, as mentioned above, the election petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at the same time on the basis of the same instructions given by the Election Commission of India. When there is no prayer for inspection of ballots in respect of Booth No. 100 and Booth No. 108 then a halfhearted prayer on this allegation in respect of Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 cannot be allowed. Hence, on this score also I do not find any force in favour of the election petitioner for the purpose of order for inspection of ballots. 23. 175, 200 and 201 cannot be allowed. Hence, on this score also I do not find any force in favour of the election petitioner for the purpose of order for inspection of ballots. 23. The last point urged was that in maximum number of ballots of aforesaid 1594 ballots stamping was such on the middle of the symbol of respondent No. 1 uniformity create a doubt as to the genuinity of those votes as such uniformity cannot be maintained by individual voters and irresistible presumption might be that such voting was done by a machine or by a single person. This allegation remains as an allegation only and on the face of the allegations being brought it remains as a doubt in the mind of the election petitioner. A doubt in the mind of the election petitioner cannot be a ground for the purpose of grant of order for inspection of ballots as such doubt could not be substantiated by any plausible evidence from the side of the election petitioner. If I refer to Rule 56(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules then it appears that proper voting should be construed to be the one where stamp should be put on the middle of the symbol. If on proper voting by uniform stamping is found in a number of votes/ballots, it could create a doubt about the genuineness then also the whole election proceeding should be construed to be a misnomer. Thus, on consideration of the allegations regarding illegal and irregular counting of ballots, I could not find that any case could be made out from the side of the election petitioner not even a prima facie case rather the whole case is based on conjecture and surmises alone. 24. In that way, I do not find any force in this election petition and hence the petition filed for inspection of documents is hereby rejected and the recriminatory petition filed by the respondent becomes redundant, in the circumstances mentioned above and the issue is decided against the election petitioner are held in the negative. Issue No. 5 25. In view of the decision on the vital issued No. 4 no relief can be granted in favour of the election petitioner and hence, the issue is decided in the negative and against the election petitioner. ORDER The election petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500. Issue No. 5 25. In view of the decision on the vital issued No. 4 no relief can be granted in favour of the election petitioner and hence, the issue is decided in the negative and against the election petitioner. ORDER The election petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500. The documents received from the District Election Officer and other sources should be returned immediately.