Judgment :- This revision is preferred against the order of the Principal District Judge, Erode (dated 17.4.2002) made in I.A.No.341/2001 in Election O.P.No.120/2001. The third Respondent is the Revision Petitioner. 2.The first Respondent Munnusamy Naidu filed Election O.P.No.120/2001 on the file of the District Court, Erode. In the said petition, he has prayed for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void and also for declaration that the first Respondent has been duly elected. The Revision Petitioner/second Respondent in the Election O.P. filed a counter statement resisting the application. 3. I.A.No.3417/2001 :- This application has been filed by the Petitioner to send for the Ballot Papers, counter foil books of ballot papers of all the eighteen wards of Andhiyur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, from the Executive Officer cum Electoral Returning Officer/5th Respondent. In I.A.No.3417/2001, only the Returning Officer viz., the Executive Officer cum Electoral Returning Officer was impleaded as Respondent. He had no objection for the petition being allowed. Accordingly, by the order dated 17.01.2002, the learned Principal District Judge has allowed I.A.No.3417/2001 sending for the ballot papers and other documents. 4.Aggrieved over the order dated 17.01.2002, the present revision Petitioner has already filed C.R.P.No. 120/2002 alleging that all the contesting parties were not impleaded in I.A.No.3417/2001. The above revision was allowed by this Court on the ground that all the necessary parties, including the Revision Petitioner, are to be impleaded as the Respondents in the application. 5.Pursuant to the order of this Court, I.A.No.3417/2001 was restored. All the contesting parties were impleaded as Respondents. Respondents have filed counter statement opposing the application to send for the Ballot papers, counter foil of the books of the ballot papers. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the learned Principal Judge has allowed the application directing the Executive Officer cum Returning Officer Andhiyur Selection Grade Town Panchayat to produce the ballot papers and counter foil books of ballot papers in all the 18 wards of Andhiyur Selection Grade Town Panchayat. 6.Aggrieved over the order dated 17.4.2002, sending for the Ballot Papers and other documents, the Revision Petitioner/2nd Respondent in the Election Petition has filed this revision. 7.Assailing the impugned order calling for the counterfoil books of the Ballot Papers, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner inter-alia raised the following contentions: - *** There cannot be an automatic sending for counter-foil of the Ballot Papers. 7.Assailing the impugned order calling for the counterfoil books of the Ballot Papers, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner inter-alia raised the following contentions: - *** There cannot be an automatic sending for counter-foil of the Ballot Papers. Unless sufficient grounds are made out, the Ballot Papers cannot be sent for; *** No objection had been raised before the Returning Officer and in the absence of any earlier petition, the District Court was not right in calling for the counter-foil of the Ballot Papers and other records. *** On the basis of vague allegations, recounting cannot be ordered. 8.Countering the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Ms.Nalini Chidambaram has drawn the attention of the Court to the list of persons against whom double entry and improper acceptance of voting is alleged and submitted that sufficient basis are made out to call for the Ballot Papers. It is further submitted that there is no valid ground to call for the Ballot Papers. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 259(1)(d)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that when improper acceptance of votes has been made a ground, the learned District Judge has rightly called for the counter-foil of the Ballot Papers and no valid objection could be raised against the same. 9.The only point that arises for consideration is whether the District Court was not right in calling for the counter foil of the Ballot Papers ? 10.The main ground of challenging the election is on improper acceptance of votes. The learned Senior Counsel for the first Respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the names of those voters and the voter list, serial number regarding which, it is alleged that there was double entry and improper acceptance of votes. As per Section 259(1)(d)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, improper exercise or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which is void, is inter-alia shown to be the ground for declaring the election to be void. In the main petition, the Petitioner has shown the list of persons against whom it is alleged double entry and improper acceptance of the votes. Prima facie, sufficient basis is made out to call for the Ballot Papers. The Revision Petitioner cannot raise objection at this final stage of calling for the Ballot papers. In the main petition, the Petitioner has shown the list of persons against whom it is alleged double entry and improper acceptance of the votes. Prima facie, sufficient basis is made out to call for the Ballot Papers. The Revision Petitioner cannot raise objection at this final stage of calling for the Ballot papers. 11.Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the first Respondent/ Petitioner has not raised any such objection before the Electoral Officer and in the absence of any such objection before the Electoral Officer it is not open to the Petitioner to raise such objection in the main Election Petition. The merits of this contention could be gone into only at the time of final hearing in the Election Petition. It is too premature to express any opinion at this stage. 12.Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2000 (8) 355, (Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram & others) the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further contended that recounting cannot be ordered on the basis of general and bald allegations. It is further submitted that the Election Petition should contain the details regarding the irregularity alleged to have been committed and in the absence of definite allegations, no recounting could be ordered. The merits of this contention cannot be gone into at this stage. The learned District Judge has only called for the counterfoil Books of the Ballot Papers. The Court is not at the stage of recounting. Recounting would arise only if the Election Court is satisfied about the necessity for recounting on the basis of the allegations in the petitions and the materials/ evidence to be adduced by the parties. Hence basing upon the above said decision, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 13.In reference to the allegations and other circumstances, the learned Principal District Judge has exercised the discretion in calling for the counterfoil books of the Ballot Papers. It cannot be said that there is improper exercise of discretion warranting interference, invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Court would exercise the power under Art.227 of the Constitution of India only if the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error or where the order has been based on no material. It cannot be said that there is improper exercise of discretion warranting interference, invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Court would exercise the power under Art.227 of the Constitution of India only if the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error or where the order has been based on no material. The order, calling for the counterfoil books of the Ballot Papers to be produced in a sealed cover, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. It is open to the Revision Petitioner to raise any objection regarding the counting of Ballot Papers at the time when the Court passes an order for recounting of votes. 14.With the above direction, the order of the Principal District Judge (dated 17.4.2002) made in I.A.No.341/2001 in Election O.P.No.120/2001 is confirmed and this revision is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.