S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. By means of the present petition the petitioner has canvassed the validity of the impugned order dated 29-1-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 i. e. Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and sought its quashment. 2. The facts essential for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner who was pitched against respondents 3 to 5 in the election of Gram Pradhan for Gram Panchayat Chitrasenpur Block Sevapuri Tahsil and District Varanasi, was declared successful on 26-6-2000 having secured 844 votes while respondent No. 3 was a close follower having polled 826 votes. In the said election total votes polled were 1829 and out of which 1715 votes were held valid and 114 votes were declared invalid. In the quadrangle fight, other contestants i. e. Jagarnath respondent No. 4 secured 39 votes while Satish respondent No. 5 received 6 votes. Opposite Party No. 3 assailed the election by means of election petition on 11-7-2000 made under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Prescribed Authority/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Varanasi on various grounds delineated in the election petition seeking the relief of recounting. The Prescribed Authority/election Tribunal recorded the evidence and in ultimate analysis, dismissed the election petition by means of order dated 17-11-2003. Aggrieved by the order of Election Tribunal, a revision was preferred by respondent No. 3 which culminated in being allowed attended with the direction for recounting of votes after summoning the entire original record. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Varanasi. 3. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V. K. Singh, focused on three points in the course of arguments, which are abstracted below: (1) Order passed by Addl. District Judge while exercising power of revisional authority was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. (2) The revisional authority has not cited in his order any illegality or perversity in the order of the Prescribed Authority while reversing its order and. (3) There is neither any specific pleading nor any valid material available on record for recounting and fishing and roving enquiry into the process of election is not permissible in the election petition unless specific pleading or proof is there making out a case for recounting. (3) There is neither any specific pleading nor any valid material available on record for recounting and fishing and roving enquiry into the process of election is not permissible in the election petition unless specific pleading or proof is there making out a case for recounting. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed credence on following case laws in vindication of his contentions: (i) Ram Adhar v. State, 1985 UPLBEC p. 317 (Full Bench ). (ii) Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal cum-Sub-Judge Hissar and Anr. , AIR 2000 P & H 1 Full Bench. (iii) Mahendra Pal v. Shri Ram Das Malanger & Ors. , 2002 JT Vol II p. 396. (iv) Mahendra Pal v. Ram Das Malanger, 2002 (1) LBESR 732 (SC) : 2002 Vol. III SCC p. 457. (v) 2003 AWC Vol I p. 67. (vi) 2003 ACJ Vol 1 p. 220. Per contra, Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the caveator Opp. Party No. 3 forcefully and vigorously argued that there was specific averments in the election petition that out of 114 votes jettisoned out of reckoning, 80 ballot papers were such in which voters had affixed mark of seal against the symbol i. e. car which was the symbol allotted to the respondent No. 3 and which according to the learned Counsel could not have been reckoned out of consideration and declared invalid. The learned Counsel also submitted that in this connection, the respondent No. 3 had made specific averments contained in the election petition which received reinforcement from other materials on record including statement of the respondent No. 3 and this furnished foundation for prayer of recounting of votes and the Prescribed Authority in utter disregard of all these materials on record, dismissed the election without any valid justification and on untenable grounds. He also submitted that in exercise of power under Section 12 (C) (6) the revisional authority could well exercise its power and look into all aspects inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. The learned Counsel also drew attention to guidelines issued by State Election Commission followed by reliance on Rule 49 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994. The learned Counsel also drew attention to guidelines issued by State Election Commission followed by reliance on Rule 49 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994. In clause 23 (ga) of the guidelines, it is stipulated that if a person has affixed more than one mark of seal against a symbol, this would not render the vote invalid vis-a-vis the candidate in favour of whom the vote has been polled and further canvassed that non-reckoning of 80 votes in favour of the respondent No. 1 has materially affected his prospects and this gave illegal and unwarranted edge to the petitioner who has been illegally declared elected. In vindication of his stand, reliance was placed on Smt. Bhoori v. Addl. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amroha, 2003 (1) LBESR 650 (All) : 2003 (94) RD 454; Smt. Maya v. Up Ziladhikari Chhata, 2003 (94) RD 125 and Vadivelu v. Sundaram and others, AIR 2000 SC 3230 , the rule of which shall be decocted in the latter part of the judgment. 4. The above contentions give birth to the following three questions which beg consideration and determination: (1) Whether in exercise of power under Section 12-C (6) the District Judge could pass orders directing recounting on the grounds enumerated in his judgment? (2) Whether there was any pleading and foundation for issuing direction for recounting or whether it would amount to fishing out or roving enquiry as urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner? (3) Whether the finding recorded by Addl. District Judge for recounting of the votes are vitiated on any ground and is liable to be quashed? 5. In dealing with the first question, I would first like to have acquaintance with the scope of revisional power under Section 12-C (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. (3) Whether the finding recorded by Addl. District Judge for recounting of the votes are vitiated on any ground and is liable to be quashed? 5. In dealing with the first question, I would first like to have acquaintance with the scope of revisional power under Section 12-C (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Section 12-C (6) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act is excerpted below for ready reference: "12-C (6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the prescribed authority upon an application under sub- section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order on any one of more of the following grounds, namely -(a) that the prescribed authority has exercised a jurisdiction not invested in it by law; (b) that the prescribed authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the prescribed authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. xxxxxxxxxxxx (8) The revising authority mentioned in sub-section (7) shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed, and may confirm, vary or recind the order of the prescribed authority or remand the case to the prescribed authority for re-hearing and pending its decision pass such interim orders as may appear to it to be just and convenient. . . . . " 6. So far as first ground prescribed in Section 12-C (6) is concerned, it is nobodys case that the Prescribed Authority exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 3 canvassed that it was urged before the District Judge that the Prescribed Authority eschewed from consideration various materials on record and pleading of consequence which, in fact, furnished valid foundation for order of recounting and finding recorded by it wears the taint of illegality and suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and also that the prescribed authority failed to exercise jurisdiction while declining recounting attended with further submission that in case materials on record go to establish that prescribed authority has either failed to exercise jurisdiction or exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the District Judge could interfere with the same. In this regard, I feel called to look into the aspect whether prescribed authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or acted illegally or with material irregularity in its jurisdiction. In this regard, I feel called to look into the aspect whether prescribed authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or acted illegally or with material irregularity in its jurisdiction. The pivotal grounds on which revision was allowed as distilled from the judgment of the revisional Court are that from evidence available on record including statement of Ashok Kumar petitioner it was establishment that 114 votes which were declared invalid were illegally cancelled notwithstanding instructions issued by the Election Commission were to the effect that if against a symbol/name, a person affixes more than on mark of seal that vote cannot be treated or declared as invalid. Further finding is that illegality in reckoning out of consideration those votes is borne out from the statement of petitioner himself. The next finding about illegality pinpointed by the District Judge in his judgment is that instructions issued under Rule 49 of the Rules encapsulated that schedule prepared at the time of counting ought to have been prepared and signed by the supervisor which admittedly having not been done, was an illegality in antagonism to Rule 49 of the Rules. He has also recorded a finding that the Opp. Party No. 3 had made a specific pleading in application under Section 12-C (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and those pleadings are established from the record. 7. I have also perused the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. From a perusal of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority it would transpire that the Prescribed Authority was too presumptuous and treated absence of signatures of the presiding officer on ballot papers as of trivial or of no consequence. In his finding the Prescribed Authority has spelt out that signatures of counting supervisor were not found on record but at the same time went on to hold that as signature of election officer was there, the absence of signature of counting supervisor would not render it illegal. It is further spelt out in his finding that though Asstt. Returning Officer for the area was there, but the entire counting was done by a third person who was not authorised as Asstt. It is further spelt out in his finding that though Asstt. Returning Officer for the area was there, but the entire counting was done by a third person who was not authorised as Asstt. Returning Officer of the concerned Panchayat area and at the same time, he again went on to hold that this did not amount to any illegality citing the ground that it was within the discretion of authority to take work from any person. It transpires from the finding that statement of Opp. Party No. 3 was ignored on the fallacy that none of the witnesses were independent witnesses/persons. In my considered view this does not furnish justification for rejection of oral evidence of the witnesses who were examined in aid of the pleading of Opp. Party No. 3 inasmuch as all these persons/persons were connected with the election and they participated in the election and counting. As a matter of fact, their statements commended to be considered on merits and cannot be by passed merely on the ground that none of them were independent witnesses. A further ground given for eschewing from consideration the statement of the respondent No. 3 was that the respondent No. 3 did not make any written objection as to the election and hence his case for recounting cannot be accepted. The judgment of the prescribed authority does admit of certain illegalities pervading the process of counting but in the ultimate analysis he was of the view that those illegalities cannot be upgraded to the height of illegalities which could make out a ground for recounting. 8. On the other hand, the revisional authority taking into reckoning certain relevant rules was right in recording a finding to the effect that illegality in counting votes was such which materially affected the result. Rule 49 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Election of Members Pradhan etc. Rule 1994 and Rule 49 (D) are very germane which envisage that "if Nivachan Adhikari is satisfied that all such ballot boxes have been received and are in order he shall take up counting of ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes. All the ballot boxes shall be opened and the counting of the ballot papers founding those boxes proceeded with in accordance with the instruction in the State Election Commission at the same time. " The learned Counsel for the Opp. All the ballot boxes shall be opened and the counting of the ballot papers founding those boxes proceeded with in accordance with the instruction in the State Election Commission at the same time. " The learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties produced relevant instructions issued by the State Election Commission U. P. and paragraph 29 as also paragraphs 23 (Ga) and 29 (2) are very relevant and germane to the controversy involved in this petition. Paragraph 23 (Ga) is excerpted below: "ek Nirvachak Kisi Ummidvar Ke Prateek Ke Samane Ek Se Adhik Chinha Laga Sakta Hai. Usse Na To Matpatra Amanya Hoga or Na Hi Prashnagat Ummidvar Ke Paksha Me Diya Gaya Mat Avaidh Hoga. " The instructions envisages that in case a person affixes more than one mark of seal against the name/sample of a candidate, said vote cannot be declared invalid. Similarly, paragraph 29 of the said instructions recites that schedules 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the relevant form shall be filled in by Counting Supervisor who shall prepare the details and place signatures and only thereafter, it shall be placed before election officer/asstt. Election Officer who shall consider entries made by the counting supervisor and thereafter, he shall affix his signatures thereon. In the present case, there is specific case taken by the petitioner in the pleading in paragraph 4 that out of 114 invalid votes, 80 votes were such which bore mark of seal against the symbol/name of Opp. Party No. 3 and those votes were in fact valid in terms of instructions and they were wrongly taken out of reckoning as having been rendered invalid and cancelled which materially affected the Opp. Party and impinged upon his result. Besides Paras 4 (E) and 6 of the Election Petition again contains specific pleading of mala fide and illegalities in the procedure adopted in counting and in pronouncing the petitioner as elected. This specific pleading taking by the respondent No. 3 in his case receives reinforcement from his statement. It would further appear that in the statement of petitioner a specific question was posed to him whether more than two mark of seal were affixed against two candidates, the petitioner pleaded his ignorance. The petitioner has specifically stated in his statement that he prayed for recounting immediately thereafter but was not allowed to do so. It would further appear that in the statement of petitioner a specific question was posed to him whether more than two mark of seal were affixed against two candidates, the petitioner pleaded his ignorance. The petitioner has specifically stated in his statement that he prayed for recounting immediately thereafter but was not allowed to do so. It would also crystallize from the judgment of the Prescribed Authority that the statements of schedules 3,4,5 and 7 were not prepared by the counting supervisor nor do they bear signatures of counting supervisor in terms of instructions as contained in the guidelines supplied by the State Election Commission. This illegality finds mention in the judgment of the prescribed authority but the same was negatived on the fallacy that the statements bore signature of election officer/asstt. Election Officer. It also appears that this illegality was also brought to the notice of the Prescribed Authority that the officer who was appointed as Asstt. Election Officer was not competent to participate in the election. It brooks no dispute that any other person who was not appointed as Asstt. Election Officer for the area cannot be officer under the rules and guidelines supplied by the State Election Commission and in consequence, the counting done by such unauthorized person rendered the proceeding vitiated and resulted in illegality. The revisional authority considered the matter in entirety and has recorded a finding that from the original record, it was apparent that counting supervisors signatures were not affixed thereon, which constituted breach of the rules. Under Rules 4 and 5 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Election of Members, Pradhan etc. Rules, 1994 it is the District Magistrate who would appoint returning officer for every election to fill up seat or seats in the Gram Panchayat. Only the District Magistrate is competent to appoint Asstt. Returning Officer to assist returning officer to perform his function. Section 4 (3) envisages that the Returning Officer shall function under these rules or general instructions of the State Election Commission and exercised his duties in accordance with Rules. From a perusal of Rules enumerated above, it is clear that every Returning Officer or Asstt. Returning Officer is appointed for an area. Indisputably, one Returning Officer could be appointed for more than one Panchayat Area. It has come in the evidence and it is also borne out from the finding of the Prescribed Authority that Asstt. From a perusal of Rules enumerated above, it is clear that every Returning Officer or Asstt. Returning Officer is appointed for an area. Indisputably, one Returning Officer could be appointed for more than one Panchayat Area. It has come in the evidence and it is also borne out from the finding of the Prescribed Authority that Asstt. Returning Officer appointed for the Panchayat Area though present did not seem to work as another person who was not appointed for this Panchayat Area was allowed to perform duties of Asstt. Returning Officer of that Panchayat area. This also detracts from the provisions of the rules and has to be read as blatant violation of the Rules. Besides, from a perusal of pleading and evidence of the parties, the respondent No. 3 has clearly made out a case for recounting. There is no evidence on record to show that different mark of seal were affixed against different candidates and according to instructions of the election commission, even if ballot paper contains more than one mark of seals against the name/symbol of a candidate, that ballot cannot be declared or treated as invalid and consequently cannot be cancelled. In the circumstances, the revisional authority rightly directed for recounting. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it amounts to fishing and roving enquiry in the garb of election petition, does not appeal to me having regard to the fact in view of specific pleading and categorical evidence forthcoming on record adduced by the parties described above, illegality is too patent which was fraught with the consequence of materially affecting the result. The order was rightly passed for recounting by the revisional authority and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority suffers from illegality pervading the process of election and revisional Court rightly passed the order directing recounting of votes. 9. As regards the submission that no roving or fishing enquiry can be permitted, it brooks no dispute that vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected or the parties could not be permitted without valid justification to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to vindicate their claims but here in the election petition from which stems the instant petition, the facts revealed are far from being vague or generalized. In connection with the aforesaid, inspiration may be drawn from the observations made by apex Court in S. Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh Swatantra, AIR1975 SC 698, and Para 18 of the said decision being germane is quoted below: "we frown upon frivolous and unreasonable refusals of recount by Returning Officers who forget the mandate of Rule 63 that allowance of recount is not the exception and refusal is restricted to cases where the demand itself is `frivolous or `unreasonable. These are strong words. The circumstances of each case decide. Where the margin of difference is minimal the claim for fresh count cannot be summarily brushed aside as futile or trumpery. If, as in this case, for the Sherpur segment a uniform view founded in legal error, has led to wrong rejection of votes, rectification by a recount on the spot, when a demand was made, would have been reasonable. If formal defects had been misconstrued at some table as substantial infirmities or vice versa resulting in wrongful reception or rejection, the sooner it was set right the better, especially when a plea for a second inspection had been made on the spot. Many practical circumstances or legal misconceptions might honestly affect the legal or arithmetical accuracy of the result and prestige or fatigue should not inhibit afresh, may be partial check. Of course, baseless or concocted claims for recount or fabricated grounds for inspection or specious complaints of mistakes in counting when the gap is huge are obvious cases of frivolous and unreasonable demands for recount. Mala fide aspersions of counting staff or false and untenable objections regarding validity of votes also fall under the same category. We mean to be illustrative, not exhaustive, but underline the need, in appropriate cases, to be reasonably liberal in recheck and recount by Returning Officers. After all, fairness at the polls must not only be manifest but misgivings about the process must be erased at the earliest. Indeed the instructions to Officers are fairly clear and lay down sound guidelines. " As stated supra, the election petition unfolds specific and categorical pleading which is supported from oral evidence adduced in the case and in the circumstances, the same cannot be said to be frivolous or unreasonable and in turn, cannot be dubbed as a roving or fishing enquiry. " As stated supra, the election petition unfolds specific and categorical pleading which is supported from oral evidence adduced in the case and in the circumstances, the same cannot be said to be frivolous or unreasonable and in turn, cannot be dubbed as a roving or fishing enquiry. In the fact-situation of the present case, when it is pleaded and supported by material on record that out of 114 votes, 80 votes polled by the respondent No. 3 were improperly, declared invalid notwithstanding instructions of the State Election it makes out a strong prima facie case for interference by the Revisional Authority. Therefore, recounting as ordered by means of revisional order could not be stretched to be close to a roving or fishing enquiry in the words of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The irony of the situation is that the Prescribed Authority noticed illegalities and irregularities and still lent justification thereto on facetious assumption, which were in blatant antagonism to the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, Rules made thereunder or the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission. 10. In the perspective of above discussion, I feel called to scan the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties across the bar. The exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity came up for consideration in various decisions of this Court and also the apex Court. In Vadivelu v. Sundaram, AIR 2000 SC 3230 , the apex Court on the point of error of jurisdiction, held in Para 26 of the said decision that "when there is error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of the law laid down by this Court, by exercising the revisional powers, the Court can set aside the order passed by the Tribunal to do justice between the parties. The illegality committed by the Election Tribunal has been corrected by the Revisional Order. " The words `material irregularity received consideration of the apex Court in 1991 SC 2053, in which reliance was placed on a decision of the Privy Council reported in 1949 PC 156, which was interpreted to mean an error of procedure in the course of trial which may have affected the ultimate result. Sri R. N. Singh they profusely relied on a decision of Full Bench of this Court reported in Ram Adhar v. State, 1985 UPLBEC 317. Sri R. N. Singh they profusely relied on a decision of Full Bench of this Court reported in Ram Adhar v. State, 1985 UPLBEC 317. Having considered this decision in all its ramifications where recounting was ordered in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the case cannot be imported for application to the facts of the present case. This decision has been set out in the forefront in justification of his submissions by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, there is specific pleading and a specific case of wrongly declaring 80 ballot papers as invalid was set forth in the plaint supported by evidence of PW 1 and PW 2. The only plea taken by the petitioner was that more than two mark of seals were apparent on the ballot papers but he seemed to have parried direct reply whether mark of seals was affixed against the name/symbol of different candidates. It brooks no dispute that in the instructions of the State Election Commission, it is specifically envisaged that in case two or more seals were affixed against a candidate, the ballot paper cannot be jettisoned out of reckoning or cancelled. In Para 19 of the said decisions, two conditions have been prescribed. It was observed as under: "before an authority hearing the election petition under the said Act can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exist: (i) That the petition for setting aside the election contains the grounds on which the election of the respondent is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and (ii) The authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. " As discussed above, there were specific averments in the election petition and the conditions prescribed in the above decisions were forthcoming but the prescribed authority appeared to have looked the other way and proceeded to pass the order otherwise. " As discussed above, there were specific averments in the election petition and the conditions prescribed in the above decisions were forthcoming but the prescribed authority appeared to have looked the other way and proceeded to pass the order otherwise. The other case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal-cum-sub-Judge Hissar and Anr. , AIR (sic) p. 1 (FB ). This decision too, in my considered view, is unavailing to the petitioner as the rule laid down in this case is that recounting of votes cannot be directed on mere asking and in a routine manner or by consent without holding a detailed enquiry. The issue as involved in the instant case is quite distinct from the issue for determination in the aforestated case. Another case on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel is Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malangar and Ors. , 2002 (1) LBESR 732 (SC) : 2002 JT Vol. II p. 396. This case is also distinguishable on facts. In that case, the petitioner did not state in the statement that eight ballot papers were illegally inserted at the time of counting of votes. In the facts and circumstances the apex Court laid down that appellant has to establish his case of irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes and if there is no evidence no recounting is possible. In the circumstances, this case is also of no assistance to the petitioner. Similarly, decision rendered in Mahendra Pal v. Shri Ram Dass Malangar & Ors. , 2002 (1) LBESR 732 (SC) : 2002 Vol. III SCC 457, is also a case where the Supreme Court reiterated the established principles that pleading of appellant has to be established and in case there is no evidence, recounting cannot be allowed. This case law is also of no help to the petitioner. Another case cited across the bar is reported in 2003 ACJ Vol. 1 page 228. In this case learned Single Judge rightly observed that mere suspicion of petitioner or her agent that there might be more invalid votes in the bundle of Opp. Parties, recounting cannot be ordered. This case law is also of no help to the petitioner. Another case cited across the bar is reported in 2003 ACJ Vol. 1 page 228. In this case learned Single Judge rightly observed that mere suspicion of petitioner or her agent that there might be more invalid votes in the bundle of Opp. Parties, recounting cannot be ordered. This case also ill-compares with the present case inasmuch as present case is not a case of mere suspicion but it is a case containing specific pleading and evidence and thus making out a case for recounting. Likewise ration flowing from a decision reported in 2003 Vol. I AWC 67, is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case election petition did not contain any allegation or evidence in support thereof. In that case allegations of preparation of schedule, or other gross irregularities was not established in paradox of the present case where illegality and violation of the rules and instructions of the Election Commission were found to be permeating on the basis evidence on record. It is thus explicit that canons that govern the above decisions contradict its extension to a situation like the present case. 11. On the other hand the case law relied upon by the Opp. Party No. 3 reported in 2003 RD p. 454, was a case where allegations of gross irregularity in counting had been made which were supported by evidence adduced which disclosed a prima facie case for recounting. In that case, counting was not supervised by election officer. It was held that recounting was rightly made. Similar view of learned single Judge of this Court contained in a decision reported in 1994 RD 125, clearly lends support to the case of the Opp. Party where records were not prepared on prescribed schedule in accordance with Rules and instructions. To sum up, the consensus of judicial opinions is in favour of the view that 80 votes polled which bore more than one mark of seal against a candidate, could not have been declared invalid or cancelled. 12. As a result of foregoing discussion I am of the firm view that order was rightly passed by the revisional authority in accordance with law for recounting of votes. 13. In the result, the petition being bereft of merit is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.