L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN the elections to the gram Panchayat of Vankapalli Village, gandlapenta Mandal, Anantapur District on 17-8-2001, the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent and Respondents 5, 6 and 7 contested for the office of Sarpanch. The writ petitioner was declared elected with a margin of twenty-one votes. Challenging the election, the 1st respondent filed Election o. P. No. 5 of 2001 in the Election Tribunal- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The trial of the O. P. commenced. The evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. The Election Officer, the 4th respondent herein was examined in chief. ( 2 ) DURING the course of his cross- examination, the 1st respondent came forward with a plea that the ballot boxes be opened to verify as to whether any votes, which were polled in her favour were counted for the petitioner. The said request was opposed by the Assistant Government pleader, appearing for 4th respondent. Arguments were advanced and reliance was placed upon the judgments of the supreme Court on behalf of both the parties. Through its Order, dated 5-4-2001, the election Tribunal directed opening of ballot boxes. Challenging that order, this writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the ballot boxes can be opened only when the Tribunal passes an order for recounting of the votes and such order can be passed only on the basis of a specific application and after adducing cogent evidence in support of the plea. ( 4 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has not pleaded, much less established any grounds for undertaking recounting of the votes. According to him, even where an application for recounting is made, ordering of it is not a matter of course and it can be only on the basis of cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the election Tribunal. He submits that the secrecy of the ballots is completely violated on account of the order passed by the tribunal. ( 5 ) SRI Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent, on the other hand submits that the Tribunal was satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the 1st respondent for undertaking a verification of ballets and no exception can be taken to the order under challenge. ( 5 ) SRI Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent, on the other hand submits that the Tribunal was satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the 1st respondent for undertaking a verification of ballets and no exception can be taken to the order under challenge. ( 6 ) IT is a settled preposition of law that the only event that the ballot boxes can be opened after declaration of the results is when the unsuccessful candidate comes forward with an application for recounting, leads evidence and makes out a case therefor. Time and again, the Hon ble supreme Court cautioned that maintenance of secrecy of ballots is one of the important aspects of the democratic process, and recounting of votes was held not to be in a matter of course. ( 7 ) REVERTING to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent has not come forward with an application for recounting. Evidence was adduced only on the general allegations. The evidence was not at all focussed on or directed towards any specific plea and grounds, warranting recounting of the votes. It was during the cross-examination of the Election Officer, a request for opening of ballot box was made on behalf of the 1st respondent. The request itself was not supported by any provision of law. While law requires that evidence has to be adduced to make out a case for opening of the ballot boxes and ordering recounting, the 1st respondent has chosen a reverse process, namely to open to ballot boxes to make out a case. Unfortunately, the Tribunal had acceded to the request. ( 8 ) IT was not as if the Tribunal was not apprised of the legal position. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Suresh prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra. and others, AIR 1975 SC 376 , V. S. Achuthanandan v. P. J. Francis and another, air 2001 SC 837 , were cited before it. In fact, the Tribunal had extracted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Suresh prasad Yadav s case (supra ). Both the decisions dealt with the circumstances under which recounting of votes can be ordered. Having extracted the same, the Tribunal had just jumped to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case. In fact, the Tribunal had extracted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Suresh prasad Yadav s case (supra ). Both the decisions dealt with the circumstances under which recounting of votes can be ordered. Having extracted the same, the Tribunal had just jumped to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case. Having referred to the principle the only discussion, which the tribunal below had undertaken, is this. "the categorical case of the petitioner that the votes polled in his favour are counted as if the votes polled in favour of the respondent. There is prima facie averment to that effect specifically in the pleadings. PWs. l to 4 categorically did not count the votes properly as such prima facie case based on the aspect that the petitioner s votes were counted as if the said votes cast in favour of respondent. It is necessary to open the ballot papers and the decision of Supreme Court comes to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, ballot papers can be opened for confronting the witness. For continuation of RW. l call on 17-4-2003. " ( 9 ) THE discussion undertaken and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be supported either on facts or in law. The tribunal failed to see that even for undertaking recounting, the 1st respondent was required to specifically plead and lead evidence. It has not chosen to refer to any plea or evidence in this behalf. The whole exercise was reduced to an empty formality. The discussion was confined to few words which are of general nature. Hence, the order under challenge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.