JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla dated 5.12.2006, whereby he has allowed the Appeal No. 17 of 2006 filed by respondent Deep Ram ordering recounting of votes. 2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that election to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kalind, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla were held on 20.12.2005. There were six candidates in all who contested the election. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar was declared to have been elected after he defeated Deep Ram by seven votes. Deep Ram respondent No. 1 herein challenged the election of Rajesh Kumar by filing Election Petition under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 before the authorized Officer i.e. S.D.O. (Civil), Theog, District Shimla. The main ground of challenge was that 27 votes had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and there was discrepancy of two votes when all the votes were totaled. It was alleged that 27 votes had been cast in favour of Deep Ram and they were wrongly rejected and therefore, the result of the election had been materially affected. 3. The parties led evidence and the SDO (Civil), on the basis of the evidence led before him dismissed the election petition. Deep Ram filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla has allowed the appeal and the reasons for allowing the appeals are as follows: "In view of the above discussion and perusal of the lower Court record it is evident that the appellant was defeated by a margin of 7 votes and 27 votes were rejected and his prayer for recounting was not allowed by the Assistant Returning Officer. There is also a difference of two votes in total. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I have come to the conclusion that recounting in the presence of a Government Officer would be just and fair." 4. We are constrained to observe that the reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner are not proper reasons. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered in a mechanical manner. The mere fact that the margin of victory or defeat in an election is low is by itself no ground to order recounting votes. We are constrained to observe that the reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner are not proper reasons. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered in a mechanical manner. The mere fact that the margin of victory or defeat in an election is low is by itself no ground to order recounting votes. The person who alleges that the result of the election has been prejudicially and materially affected must prima-facie establish and make out a case for recounting of votes. If the petitioner in an election petition prima-facie shows that the votes have been illegally rejected or the rejection has been made against the rules, then the Court will have the power to order recounting. 5. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner does not appear to have gone through the evidence at all. It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that he was not present throughout the counting process. According to him, he was moving in and out of the hall where the counting was taking place. The petitioners own case is that his agent Shri Hem Chand was present throughout the counting process. The petitioner admits in his cross-examination that he had not objected to any of the votes being rejected at the time when the counting was taking place. He however states that after the counting had taken place, he raised objections before the Returning Officer. 6. In the present case, Hem Chand who was the agent of Deep Ram has not at all supported him. He in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that it is correct that only those votes were rejected which were invalid. In view of the statement of the agent of Deep Ram that all the votes which were rejected were invalid votes, no case whatsoever is made out for ordering recounting of votes. No evidence has been led by Deep Ram to show that the rejection of the 27 votes was improper. His agent admits that these 27 votes were invalid votes. If valid votes cast in favour of Deep Ram had been rejected he would have immediately raised an objection. Deep Ram has failed to prove even a single instance of a valid vote having been rejected by the Returning Officer. 7. Reliance has been placed by Mr. His agent admits that these 27 votes were invalid votes. If valid votes cast in favour of Deep Ram had been rejected he would have immediately raised an objection. Deep Ram has failed to prove even a single instance of a valid vote having been rejected by the Returning Officer. 7. Reliance has been placed by Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned Counsel for Deep Ram on Jagjit Singh v. Dharam Pal Singh and others, 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 422, is totally misplaced. This judgment in our opinion is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Apex Court, the High Court had rejected the election petition solely on the ground that there was no averment in the election petition that the election result had been materially affected by the rejection of the votes. The Apex Court held that the petitioner in the said petition had made averments that though he lost by 80 votes, more than 80 valid votes cast in his favour had been improperly rejected. The Apex Court held that in view of these averments, the mere fact that no averments had been made that the rejection of votes had materially affected the election was not a ground to reject the election petition at the thresh-hold without taking the same to trial. In the present case trial has taken place. 8. Reliance placed by Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned Counsel for Deep Ram in Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi and others, (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 108, is also misplaced. It may be true that the Returning Officer does not have the right to recount the votes and recounting can only be before any election petition. However, before recounting is ordered, the person challenging the result of the election must prima-facie show that the votes have been improperly rejected. 9. In the present case, Deep Ram election petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case and mere fact that the margin of defeat was small does not entitle him to recount of votes. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 5.12.2006 in case No. 17/ 2006 is set-aside and the order of SDO (Civil) Theog dated 27.6.2006 in case No. 2/2006, District Shimla is restored. C.M.P. No. 2 of 2007. 11. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 5.12.2006 in case No. 17/ 2006 is set-aside and the order of SDO (Civil) Theog dated 27.6.2006 in case No. 2/2006, District Shimla is restored. C.M.P. No. 2 of 2007. 11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, this application is also disposed of. Interim order dated 4.1.2007 is vacated. Writ Petition allowed. -