L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ELECTIONS to the office of the Sarpanch of mandlem Grampanchayat, Jupadu Mandal of Kurnool District were held on 14-08-2001. The petitioner and the second respondent contested to the office of the Panchayat and counting was undertaken on the same day. In the counting, it emerged that the second respondent was declared to have been elected with a majority of 16 votes. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application for recounting. The same was undertaken in accordance with the rules framed under the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act ). In the recounting, the writ petitioner secured 1221 ,rotes and the second respondent secured 219 votes. Therefore, the writ petitioner was declared elected with majority of two votes. ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the election of the writ petitioner, the second respondent filed election O. P. No. 5 of 2001 before the election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil judge s Court, Nandikotkur. Several allegations as to the irregularity as regards the voting by certain persons and in the counting were alleged by the second respondent. The petitioner resisted the same by filing a counter-affidavit. There was no plea of recrimination in the counter- affidavit. The petitioner filed I. A. No, 22 of 2002 seeking amendment of the counter- affidavit. The trial Court rejected the same through orders dated 15-04-2002. This order was challenged in W. P. No. 10206 of 2002. The writ petition was dismissed and writ appeal filed against the dismissal order, was withdrawn. ( 3 ) THE trial Court framed several issues. Some of the issues related to the plea of the second respondent for ordering recounting. Evidence of the witnesses namely P. Ws. 1 to 3 and R. Ws. 1 and 2 was recorded and certain documents were marked. On the basis of the evidence before it, the trial Court passed an order dated 11-02-2003 ordering recounting. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing W. P. No. 2769 of 2003. It was dismissed on 18-04-2003. W. A No. 1224 of 2003 filed against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. ( 4 ) AFTER that, the way for recounting became clear and the trial Court undertook the same. It has also taken into account, the objections raised by the parties as to the votes, the validity of which was doubtful. It was dismissed on 18-04-2003. W. A No. 1224 of 2003 filed against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. ( 4 ) AFTER that, the way for recounting became clear and the trial Court undertook the same. It has also taken into account, the objections raised by the parties as to the votes, the validity of which was doubtful. After discussing the matter with reference to each and every such doubted ballot paper, the trial Court recorded a finding that the writ petitioner secured 1217 votes whereas the second respondent secured 1224 votes. Since it emerged that the second respondent secured seven votes more than the petitioner, through its order dt. 30-04-2003 the trial Court set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the second respondent as elected. Hence the writ petition. ( 5 ) SRI C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole exercise undertaken by the trial Court was contrary to the provisions of the election Rules framed under the Act and the trial Court had transgressed its limits in treating some of the invalid votes as valid and vice versa. He points out that the second respondent has miserably failed to make out a case initially for recounting and thereafter on merits of the matter. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for panchayat Raj appearing for the first respondent and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy appearing for the second respondent, on the other hand, submit that once the trial Court passed an order of recounting and it has been upheld by this Court, the question as to whether it was proper for the trial Court to order recounting cannot be raised at this stage. It is also their contention that the trial court had meticulously followed the procedure stipulated under the Act before ordering recounting, undertaking the recounting and granting relief thereafter. ( 7 ) CHALLENGING the election of the petitioner herein, the second respondent filed the O. P. Relief claimed by her in the election petition was for ordering recounting of the votes and to declare the election of the writ petitioner as void. Wherever a prayer for recounting is made, the Election tribunals are required to undertake the enquiry and adjudicate as to the permissibility of recounting. Wherever a prayer for recounting is made, the Election tribunals are required to undertake the enquiry and adjudicate as to the permissibility of recounting. It was in this context that the trial Court framed necessary issues and after examination of the parties pronounced its orders on 11-02-2003, as regards recounting. The order was challenged and came to be upheld in writ petition and writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein. It is true that whenever the election of any candidate is challenged and a prayer is made for recounting, a strong case has to be made out by the election petitioner and that recounting is not a matter of course. The Supreme Court and this court have held that unless the election petitioner makes out a strong case, recounting cannot be undertaken just for the asking of it. It is in this context, the trial court passed the orders on 11-02-2003 discussing the various aspects of the matter and evidence on record before it reached a conclusion that it is a case for ordering recounting. Once that order was upheld, it is not open for the petitioner herein to canvass on the permissibility or otherwise for ordering recounting. On the order of directing recounting having become final, the only step that was left to be undertaken by the trial Court was to take up recounting, decide the matter on the basis of the results on such recounting and to declare the result. During the course of recounting, the trial court is under obligation to consider the objections that may be raised by both the parties. ( 8 ) IT was in this context that the trial court had dealt with each and every ballot paper, the validity of which was in doubt. Such a discussion was undertaken in paragraphs 13 to 27. The dispute relates to 12 votes. A detailed discussion was undertaken and reasons were recorded in support of the conclusion with reference to each and every disputed ballot paper. Hardly there exists any doubt as to the findings recorded by the trial Court. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sought to attack the findings recorded by the court below in respect of two ballot papers where multiple markings were found. Hardly there exists any doubt as to the findings recorded by the trial Court. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sought to attack the findings recorded by the court below in respect of two ballot papers where multiple markings were found. The trial Court has not only given cogent reasons but also has pointed out that it has compared the same by undertaking vertical and horizontal folding of the ballot papers. It gave the benefit of doubt in favour of the candidates in whose favour the ballot paper can be said to have been polled. Even if the two ballot papers on which the learned counsel for the petitioner had stressed ought to have been ignored, it emerges that the second respondent has a majority of five votes. ( 10 ) NO irregularity or non-compliance with the procedure stipulated under the Act or the Rules made thereunder for recounting, has been pointed out. As observed earlier, once the order of recounting has been upheld, the area of controversy gets narrowed down substantially and the parties have invariably to abide by the results of such recounting. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or irregularity in procedure in the order passed by the Court below. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.