JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner, and Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Hari Om Khare for respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the other contesting parties in the election petition. Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition was finally heard and is being decided. 2. The elections, on the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sisana Pargana, Tehsil and District Baghpat, were held on 25.8.2005. The respondent No. 3-Paramjeet was declared elected with 1100 votes as against Shri Pratap Singh-writ petitioner with 1099 votes, with a margin of only one vote. Shri Pratap Singh filed an Election Petition No. 2:3 4/5 under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act), alleging corrupt practices and gross irregularities in counting of votes. It was stated in the election petition that Shri Nrapjeet Singh, real brother of Shri Paramjeet Singh, returned candidate is working in Baghpat Sugar Mill, where the counting took place, and the returning officer and the other employees on the election duties were the employees of Ganna Vikas Samiti. They caused undue influence in the elections. The counting rooms were changed. In substance, it was contended that according to the statements of presiding officer, a total number of 3303 votes were cast out of 3735 electors in the electoral list at the time of counting. However 3292 votes were found out of which election petitioner secured 1099, Shri Paramjeet Singh-opposite party No. 1, 1100 votes; Shri Jagdish-opposite party No. 2, 925 and Shri Paresh-opposite party No. 3, 40 votes, and 129 votes were declared invalid. Initially election petitioner was declared elected with 26 votes but the results were not declared. Then he was declared to be elected with 16 votes. Once again the election results were stopped. On the third occasion, he was declared to be elected with 10 votes and once again the results were not declared and thereafter the opposite party No. 1 was declared to be elected with one vote. In paragraph-7 of the election petition, it was stated that there was a difference of 10 votes. 3. In the written statement, Shri Paramjeet-the opposite party No. 1 denied the allegations. He denied that his brother has influenced the elections. In paragraph-7 of the election petition, it was stated that there was a difference of 10 votes. 3. In the written statement, Shri Paramjeet-the opposite party No. 1 denied the allegations. He denied that his brother has influenced the elections. The election was held strictly in accordance with the election rules. There is no evidence of any illegality in the election process. The Sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat, was the incharge of the elections and that the counting took place in his supervision. All other allegations with regard to irregularities and undue influence were denied. 4. By an order dated 15.1.2008, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat, after taking evidence, decided issue Nos. 1 and 3, with the finding that there was no denial of the fact that in the elections 3303 votes were cast in the ballot box, whereas 3293 were counted, including 3164 valid votes with 129 invalid votes. On issue No. 2, she held that according to the election results in Schedule-6, election petitioner was found to have secured 1100 votes and opposite party No. 1-Paramjeet 925 votes; 40 votes were cast in favour of Paresh and 129 votes were declared invalid. 5. While deciding issue Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, the Prescribed Authority held that Shri Nrapjeet Singh, brother of returned candidate was present at the time of counting. His staffs was involved in the counting. It shows that the counting was affected and was not fair. The number of votes cast and those which were counted with a difference of only one vote, and the statement of opposite party No. 1 Shri Paramjeet, that he does not know about the number of votes which were taken out as ballot box, as he was ill, and further his admission in the written statement, would show that all the votes were not counted. She thereafter, while deciding issue Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, found that the election petitioner has made out a case for recount of votes and directed recount on 18.1.2008. 6. The recount was not postponed inspite of the application of the petitioner. It was actually made on 21.1.2008 and in which it was found that the election petitioner-Pratap Singh had secured 1096 votes whereas returned candidate-Paramjeet had actually secured 1093 votes which is three votes less than the election petitioner. 6. The recount was not postponed inspite of the application of the petitioner. It was actually made on 21.1.2008 and in which it was found that the election petitioner-Pratap Singh had secured 1096 votes whereas returned candidate-Paramjeet had actually secured 1093 votes which is three votes less than the election petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the same date, declared the result of recount and declared the election petitioner-Shri Pratap Singh to be elected. He took oath on 22.1.2008, and that his signatures were attested for operating the accounts on 23.1.2008. 7. Shri Paramjeet Singh-the returned candidate filed a Revision No. 2/2008 under Section 12-C (6) of the Act. By the order under challenge the revision was allowed on the ground that the Prescribed Authority did not record specific finding that 3303 ballots were used, and put in the ballot box. The election petitioner had failed to discharge the burden by proving that actually 3303 votes were polled. The election petitioner did not make any statement in the election petition giving the details of the valid votes which were declared invalid and did not specifically plead or prove the irregularities in the elections. He had not named any officer in the counting who had influenced the results. The Prescribed Authority appears to be influenced by the fact that there was difference of only one vote. The allegations of irregularities, undue influence and corrupt practices were not proved. In fact, no specific assertion was made with regard to these corrupt practices. The allegations, that the counting officer was serving on the post of D.C.O., in Ganna Vikas Samiti and that all the employees at the time of counting, who were employees of the Ganna Vikas Samiti, and that Shri Nrapjeet Singh the brother of Shri Paramjeet Singh was an employee in the sugar mill was not sufficient nor could raise a presumption, that his presence would prove the irregularities and allegations of corrupt practices in the elections. The revisional Court then found that the conclusions drawn by the S.D.O. were imaginary and were not based on any valid and admissible evidence. He has further found that the failure to specifically deny the number of votes cast and counted was not a proof by itself of any irregularity in the elections. The revisional Court then found that the conclusions drawn by the S.D.O. were imaginary and were not based on any valid and admissible evidence. He has further found that the failure to specifically deny the number of votes cast and counted was not a proof by itself of any irregularity in the elections. The Sub Divisional Magistrate did not discuss the evidence and has not given any reasoning for arriving at a conclusion of number of votes cast and counted. The revision was allowed on 25.3.2008, and the orders dated 15.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, were set aside. By the same order, the other two revisions, namely revision No. 3/2008 and 4/2008 filed by the election petitioner against the orders dated 21.1.2008 and 15.1.2008 separately were also allowed. 8. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that there was specific pleadings making allegations and giving material particulars proved by evidence on record to show that there were serious irregularities in counting of votes, which was effected by the presence of Shri Nrapjeet Singh the brother of the returned candidate alongwith the staff of the sugar mill. Shri Nrapjeet Singh was working in the sugar mill, and that his fellow workers were involved in counting. It was established that 3303 votes were put in the ballot box whereas only 3293 votes were counted. The election petitioner was initially declared elected with 26 votes; thereafter by 16 votes and then by 10 votes but was still declared defeated with one vote. Shri B.D. Mandhyan has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Smt. Vibha Sharma v. Smt. Saroj and others, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 500 , in submitting that narrow margin of votes would not by itself justify recounting but this is a fact which can be taken into consideration while deciding whether to order a recount. In Bhagauti v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) AWC 732 , it was held that where there is narrow margin of one vote and there was sufficient pleading in coming to the conclusion that irregularity was committed in counting of ballot papers, the direction for recount does not suffer from legal infirmity. In Bhagauti v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) AWC 732 , it was held that where there is narrow margin of one vote and there was sufficient pleading in coming to the conclusion that irregularity was committed in counting of ballot papers, the direction for recount does not suffer from legal infirmity. In Sobh Nath v. State of U.P., 1999 (1) AWC 451 , the same view was taken in a matter where there was difference of only two votes, and in Reeta Yadav v. State of U.P., 2007 (8) ADJ 710, where there was margin of only seven votes, the Court relied upon Ram Aadhar Singh v. District Judge, 1985 UPLBEC 317, in which a Full Bench of this Court held that inspection of ballot papers for recount is provided only if conditions laid down in that judgment were satisfied. Similar view was taken in Ashok v. Additional District Judge VIth, Varanasi, 2004 (96) RD 482, in which it was held that there are specific and categorical pleadings supported by oral evidence recount could be directed. 9. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3 on the other hand, submits that in the present case the pleadings were insufficient. The election petitioner did not specifically plead the irregularities, which were committed in counting. He did not prove on record that 3303 ballots were actually used by the electors and put in the ballot box. The manner, in which the brother of the returned candidate, influenced the counting was neither pleaded in the election petition nor proved on record. Relying upon the secrecy of ballots and presumption of correctness of the election results Shri Ashok Khare submits that the election petition must contain an adequate statement of material fact on which the petitioner relies in support of his case, and that the tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspections of ballot papers is necessary. He has relied upon judgments in case of Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and others, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; Mahender Pratap v. Krishna Pal and others, (2003) 1 SCC 390 ; M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and others, 2004 (14) AIC 202 (SC) in which it was held that low margin of votes between the winning candidate and election petitioner is by itself not a valid ground to order recount; and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (18) AIC 324 (SC), in which it was reiterated that where pleading of material fact stating irregularities in counting of votes, and the proof of prima facie case on the material on record is necessary to order recount, the Election Tribunal will not make a roving and fishing enquiry. He has also relied upon Baldev Singh v. Shinder Pal Singh and another, (2007) 1 SCC 341 , in which these judgments were followed. It is submitted by Shri Ashok Khare that the District Judge has appreciated the fact and finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the light of the relevant case law of recount of votes and has rightly held that material particulars of corrupt practice and illegality in recount were not given in the pleadings nor any evidence was led to arrive at a finding without giving any reasoning that the recount was necessary. 10. The law with regard to recount of votes is fairly well settled in a number of decisions. In Beli Ram Bhalalik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi, AIR 1975 SC 283 the Supreme Court cautioned that since an order for a recount touches upon the secrecy of ballot, it should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. Although no cast iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet, from a bedroll of the decisions of this Court, two broad guidelines are discernible; that the Court would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity, or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. In Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 , Chanda Singh v. Ch. Shiv Ram, AIR 1975 SC 403 , Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 502 , same principles were upheld. These principles were reiterated in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, AIR 1975 SC 2117 , as follows : “(1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is acrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) That the Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void, and (6) That on the special facts of the given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials.” 11. In S. Raghubir Singh Gill v. S. Gurucharan Singh Tohra, 1980 Supp. SCC 53, it was held as under : “True, re-count cannot be ordered just for the asking. A petition for re-count cannot be ordered after inspection of ballot papers must contain an adequate statement on material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and secondly the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties an inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The discretion conferred in this behalf should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials for declaring the election void.” 12. The discretion conferred in this behalf should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials for declaring the election void.” 12. In M.R. Gopalakrishanan v. Thachady Prabhakaran, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 101, it was held that the demand of defeated candidate for re-count of votes has to be considered keeping in view that secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy, and, therefore, unless the election petitioner is able not only to plead and disclose the material facts but also substantiate the same by means of evidence of reliable character that there existed a prima facie case for re-count, no Tribunal or Court would be justified in directing a re-count. 13. In Vadivelu v. Sundaram, 2000 (8) SCC 355 , same principle was reiterated with emphasis in paragraph 16 quoted as below : “The result of the analysis of the above cases would show that this Court has consistently taken the view that re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re-count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if it is proved that purity of elections, has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties.” 14. But if it is proved that purity of elections, has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties.” 14. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis, (2001) 3 SCC 81 , Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that once a re-count is validly ordered and the statistics revealed by the re-count are available to be used for deciding election dispute, the facts revealed by re-count cannot be relied upon by the election petitioner to support the prayer and sustain the order for re-count if the pleadings and material available on record anterior to actual re-count did not justify grant of the prayer for inspection and recount. 15. In the present case, the petitioner after alleging the fact of nominations in elections in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 stated in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 that out of 3735 electors in the electoral list, according to the statement of presiding officer, 3303 electors had exercised their right of vote whereas according to the counting sheet taking into account the number of votes polled and 129 invalid votes, a total of 3293 votes were counted. Initially the election petitioner was declared to be elected with 26 votes and then 16 votes and again with 10 votes but thereafter the election results were postponed and election petitioner was shown to have lost with a difference of one.vote. At the time of counting the officer did not give explanation of the difference of ten votes in the number of votes put in the ballot box and the number which were counted. Thereafter in paragraph 9 to 13, the election petitioner has alleged corrupt practices by Shri Naipjeet Singh, who was the brother of the returned candidate, and was working in Baghpat Sugar Mill. He stated that the D.C.O. of the Ganna Vikas Samiti was the counting officer, and all the persons involved in the counting were the employees of the Ganna Vikas Samiti and that they exercised undue influence and caused irregularities in counting and has affected the result by bribery and corruption. In para 10 it was stated that the elected candidate exercised the influence of money and thus induced the electors. In para 10 it was stated that the elected candidate exercised the influence of money and thus induced the electors. In para 11 it was stated that initially room No. 2 of Yamuna Inter College Baghpat was stated to be the place where the counting could take place but thereafter room No. 27 was used of which no previous notice was given. 16. A perusal of the election petition would support the conclusion of the revisional Court that the pleadings were vague and indefinite. The fact, that 3303 electors exercised their right to vote, was stated to be on the basis of the statement of the presiding officer. This fact was not proved by evidence. The election tribunal found that this fact was proved as there was no specific denial in the written statement. The election officer was neither summoned nor examined the statement of opposite party No. 3, who was one of the candidate in the written statement in which it is alleged that he had admitted the contents of the election petition was not of much consequence. The ignorance of the returned candidate about the number of ballots used and whether there was any difference of ten votes in the number of ballots counted and that his brother was present at the time of counting, has been used against him as material in support of the order of recount. These statements were not sufficient to direct recount of votes. In M. Chinnasami (supra) it was held that question as to what would constitute material facts would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed by Supreme Court in para 29 : “29. In Jibontara Chatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal and others, wherein a case was made out that 824 ballot papers were rejected contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari, this Court held that the High Court was in error in refusing to direct the recounting of votes. While making the said observations, the Court relied upon an earlier decision of this Court in T.A. Ahammed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez and others, wherein one of the members, Lahoti, J. was also a party noticing: “27. Furkan Ansari, this Court held that the High Court was in error in refusing to direct the recounting of votes. While making the said observations, the Court relied upon an earlier decision of this Court in T.A. Ahammed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez and others, wherein one of the members, Lahoti, J. was also a party noticing: “27. Though the inspection of ballot papers is to be allowed sparingly and the Court may refuse the prayer of the defeated candidate for inspection if, in the garb of seeking inspection, he was indulging in a roving enquiry in order to fish out materials to set aside the election, or the allegations made in support of such prayer were vague or too generalized to deserve and cognizance. Nevertheless, the power to direct inspection of ballot papers is there and ought to be exercised if, based on precise allegations of material facts, also substantiated a case for permitting inspection is made out as it necessary to determine the issue arising for decision in the case and in the interest of justice.” 28. It is true that a recount is not to be ordered merely for the asking or merely because the Court is inclined to hold a re-count. In order to protect the secrecy of ballots the Court would permit a re-count only upon a clear case in that regard having been made out. To permit or not to permit a recount is a question involving jurisdiction of the Court. Once a recount has been allowed the Court cannot shut its eyes on the result of recount on the ground that the result of recount as found is at variance with the pleadings. Once the Court has permitted recount within the well-settled parameters of exercising jurisdiction in this regard, it is the result of the recount which has to be given effect to.” 17. There was no evidence or material on the record except the statement of the election petitioner that 3303 electors had exercised their right to vote. The finding is not based on the perusal of the election record or the counting of the counter foils. All the plaintiff witnesses stated that according to the statement of the presiding officer, 3303 votes were cast. The presiding officer was not examined. The finding is not based on the perusal of the election record or the counting of the counter foils. All the plaintiff witnesses stated that according to the statement of the presiding officer, 3303 votes were cast. The presiding officer was not examined. There was no such admission by the returned candidate in the written statement or in his oral statement that 3303 electors had exercised their right of votes and had actually put their votes on the ballot box. The findings recorded by the election tribunal as such were erroneous and were not based upon any relevant material or admissible evidence on record. With regard to the corrupt practices by brother of the returned candidate and the persons of the Sugar Mill, who were engaged in the election duties and counting, there is no specific pleadings or proof of the method and manner in which they had influenced the elections or the counting. The election petition and the evidence led by petitioner did not suggest as to how and in what manner the election was influenced or induced by their presence. 18. The order, directing recount was not a valid order passed in accordance with the law and consequence recount of the votes will not benefit the election petitioner. 19. The Supreme Court in V.S. Achuthanandan (supra) has held that where the order of recount is not valid, the result thereafter would not be available to decide the election petition. 20. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order is discharged. ————