JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — The petitioner assails the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the District Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in elec¬tion Petition No.4 of 2003 wherein he ordered for recounting of the ballot papers. 2. The petitioner was opp.party No.1 and opp.party No.3 was the petitioner in the aforesaid case before the Court below. The petitioner was a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party in the last Municipal election from Ward No.12 of Jeypore Municipal¬ity and opp.Party No.3 who was declared elected as a councillor was a B.J.D. Party candidate. Two other candidates (opp.Parties 2 and 4) contested the said election. Polling was held on 19.9.2003 from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and counting took place on 20.9.2003 on which date result of the election was declared by the Return¬ing Officer and opp.party No.3 was declared to be elected as a councillor by a margin of seven votes against the petitioner. The petitioner filed the aforesaid election Petition inter alia on the ground that fake votes were polled in the names of five dead persons, two mentally retarded persons and some absentee elec¬tors. The petitioner and opp.party No.3 examined three witnesses each. Opp.Party No.5, the Election Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Jeypore also examined two witnesses. As it appears, the petition¬er filed a petition to recount the ballot papers.After assessing the evidence on record the Court below came to a conclusion that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘opp.party No.3’) prima facie established that votes were cast in the name of some dead persons and some absentee electors. Since a case for re¬counting of ballot papers was properly made out by opp.party No.3 who was defeated by a margin of only seven votes, placing reliance on a number of decisions including the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court below allowed the petition and directed for recounting of the ballot papers vide order dated 1.8.2005. Being aggrieved with this order opp.party No.3 (herein¬after referred to as ‘the petitioner’) filed the present writ petition against the election petitioner as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that main¬tenance of secrecy of ballot being sacrosanct, it is established principle of law that without sufficient ground being shown order for inspection and counting of ballots should not be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that main¬tenance of secrecy of ballot being sacrosanct, it is established principle of law that without sufficient ground being shown order for inspection and counting of ballots should not be allowed. In the instant case there is no specific pleading in the Election Petition with regard to the polling of fake votes in the names of dead persons and the absentee electors. Only because the peti¬tioner was defeated by a margin of only seven votes, in absence of any other ground the Court below ought not to have allowed the petition. So he pressed to allow the present writ petition. 4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.3 submitted that no doubt maintenance of secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct, but maintenance of purity of election is equally important. In the instant case there is specific pleading in the Election Petition that fake votes were cast in the names of five dead persons, two mentally retarded persons and some absentee electors which has also been prima facie established in evidence. So it is wrong to submit that there is no specific pleading in the writ petition with regard to the polling of fake votes. Ac¬cordingly he pressed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. It transpires from the copy of the Election Petition that votes were cast in the names of Apili Behera, Simadri Beh¬era, Maheswar Behera, Tarini Behera and Sartik Behera, all of whom had already died by the time the polling was held. Similarly it is pleaded therein that votes were cast in the name of Parbati Behera and Kamulu Paraja and some others, even though they had already left Jeypore by the time the polling was held. It tran¬spires from the evidence of P.W.3 (election petitioner) that votes were cast in the name of Kartik Behera, Sibaram Behera, Simadri Behera, Maheswar Behera, Tarini Behera, Dhabaleswar Behera and Raktadas Patra, out of whom five were dead, one was a mental¬ly retarded person and the other one was an absentee. So it cannot be said that no foundation was laid before the petition for recounting of the ballot papers was filed before the Court below. 6. It is well settled that while maintenance of secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct, maintenance of purity of election is equal¬ly important. So it cannot be said that no foundation was laid before the petition for recounting of the ballot papers was filed before the Court below. 6. It is well settled that while maintenance of secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct, maintenance of purity of election is equal¬ly important. If there is prima facie material to show that purity of election has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election, the Court can resort to recounting of votes. Placing reliance on a number of decisions of the apex Court, this Court in the case of Kulamani Behera v. Jayanta Samal and another, 2004 (I) OLR 336 held : “It is thus clear that for an order for re-examination and re-count of votes, the election petition must contain ade¬quate statement of material facts including the specific illegal¬ities alleged to have been committed in the counting of ballot papers and there must be evidence adduced by the election peti¬tioner to prima facie establish such illegalities in counting and an order of re-count cannot be granted as a matter of right but only on good grounds for believing that there has been a mistake in the counting.” In the case at hand as stated above, opp.Party No.3 (elec¬tion petitioner) in his evidence before the Court below specifi¬cally named some dead persons and some absentee electors in whose names votes were alleged to have been cast. There is no specific denial to this, on behalf of the petitioner (opp.party No.1) in the Court below. So, it cannot be said that there is no materi¬al to prima facie establish that votes were cast in the name of some dead persons and absentee electors. Moreover, the petitioner has been defeated by a margin of only seven votes. As such there is no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the order passed by the Court below to be interfered with by this Court under writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.