ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the Election Tribunal (Principal Junior Civil Judge), Kovvur (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the purpose of convenience) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The said E.O.P was filed praying for recounting of votes polled for the office of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tallapalem, with a further prayer to set aside the election of the first respondent to the post of Sarpanch of Tallapalem village and for costs and also for such other suitable reliefs. 3. At the outset, it may be pointed out that no relief of declaration to declare the petitioner as newly elected Sarpanch in the event of the declaration of the election to the office of the Sarpanch in favour of the first respondent to be set aside by the Tribunal, had been prayed for. The Tribunal, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having formulated the points for determination at para 8, appreciated the evidence available on record, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, R.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.A-1 to A-8, Exs.B-1 and B-2 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the averments made in the election petition are very vague and bald and the material facts had not been averred and further the burden had not been discharged and further opined that the petitioner failed to make out a strong case to order the recounting of the votes and accordingly dismissed the election O.P. aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful revision petitioner. 4. The first respondent is the successful candidate, who was declared as duly elected to the office of the Sarpanch aforesaid, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are the District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Development Officer respectively and 5th respondent is the Election Officer, Stage-II Officer. 5. 4. The first respondent is the successful candidate, who was declared as duly elected to the office of the Sarpanch aforesaid, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are the District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Development Officer respectively and 5th respondent is the Election Officer, Stage-II Officer. 5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner would lay emphasis on the fact that the difference or margin of votes between the petitioner and the first respondent being only two votes, the Tribunal ought to have ordered recounting of the votes instead of dismissing the election O.P. The learned counsel also pointed out to the averments made by the 5th respondent and also had taken this Court through the evidence of 5th respondent, who was examined as R.W.4, and would maintain that even though there is some discrepancy relating to the time of presentation and certain other aspects relating to both Exs.A-4 and A-5, the fact that the then Rule, Rule 35 of Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, members of Mandal Parishads etc., Rules, 1994, had not been complied with. The learned counsel also would maintain that the said rules correspond to Rule 60 of the present Rules A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the election O.P. at paras 5, 6 and 7 and would maintain that specific stand had been taken in this regard. When the evidence of R.W.4, the Election Officer, would clearly go to show the mandatory provisions of the then Rules 34 and 35 referred to above had not been followed. The Tribunal should have taken note of the same and should have ordered recounting instead of dismissing the election O.P. The counsel also incidentally had referred to the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and also the nature of burden of proof. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also would point out that it may be that P.W.1 might have made certain admissions, but such admissions being only oral evidence, the same cannot override the statutory mandate. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also would point out that it may be that P.W.1 might have made certain admissions, but such admissions being only oral evidence, the same cannot override the statutory mandate. The rules being mandatory, if even this Court as revisional Court is satisfied that R-5 had not acted in accordance with the statutory rules and had contravened the then rules, definitely it is a fit case where recounting to be ordered irrespective of the fact that whether a declaration to declare the petitioner as Sarpanch duly elected as such had been prayed for or not. The learned counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and also pointed out to the relevant portions of the oral evidence and further relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration had taken this Court through Exs.A-4 and A-5 and also pointed out to the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of R.W.4 as well, and would maintain that though a vague plea relating to corrupt practices had been pleaded, specifically material facts had not been averred. The counsel also would maintain that the other part is the unsuccessful candidates also had not been impleaded as parties and no relief to declare the petitioner as duly elected in the event of the present election being set aside also had not been prayed for and in the light of Rule 35 (5) of the then Rules the further recounting being impermissible, the action of R-5 cannot be found fault in any way, especially in the light of the evidence of R-5 as R.W.4. Incidentally the learned counsel also pointed out to certain other relevant rules in this regard. The counsel also relied on certain decisions. 7. Sri Meherchand Noori, the learned counsel representing R-1, the candidate who was only declared as elected as Sarpanch, made elaborate submissions relating to the burden of proof and also pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of P.W.1 in particular where certain admissions had been made and further pointed out to Rules 34 and 35 of the then Rules corresponding to Rules 58 and 60 of the present Rules. The learned counsel also would maintain that, no doubt, by virtue of Exs.A-4 and A-5 request was made for recounting and such demand was made in relation to the recounting of invalid votes and this is clear since such admissions had been made by P.W.1 and such admission may have to be read along with what had been deposed by R.W.4 and when this evidence is carefully scrutinized it cannot be said that there was any contravention of the statutory rules. The learned counsel also would maintain that after recounting of the invalid votes, the petitioner also signed Form No.XXVI and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such ground again having signed in Form No.XXVI. The learned counsel also pointed out to the discrepancies in the evidence available on record, the evidence of R.W.1, R.W.2, R.W.3 and R.W.4 as well and further pointed out to certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the respective pleadings of the parties and pointed out to relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal and would maintain that the material facts had not been pleaded at all. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel relied on several decisions, both under the Representation of People's Act and also the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the relevant rules framed thereunder. 8. Heard the counsel on record, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. In the light of the respective contentions advanced by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in the present civil revision petition. (1) Whether the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006 and the findings recorded on appreciation of evidence available on record by the Tribunal to be in any way disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 10. Point No.1:- The parties in the present civil revision petition are shown as shown in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006. The reliefs prayed for in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006 already had been specified above. 11. (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 10. Point No.1:- The parties in the present civil revision petition are shown as shown in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006. The reliefs prayed for in E.O.P.No.5 of 2006 already had been specified above. 11. Before taking up the further discussion in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it may be appropriate to have a look at the decision of the Apex Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh and another1 wherein the Apex Court at paras 7 and 9 observed as hereunder. "Concededly the following factors are relevant for directing recounting of votes: (i) prima facie case must be established; (ii) material facts must be pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) a roving and fishing inquiry shall not be directed by way of an order for recounting of votes; (iv) an objection to the said effect should be raised; and (v) secrecy of ballot papers should be maintained. [See Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh and others, (2006) 4 SCC 542 ; M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy, (2004) 6 SCC 341 = 2004 AILD 216 (SC); Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2004) 6 SCC 331 and Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan and others, (2006) 2 SCC 300 ] The 1st respondent was found to have made out a prima facie case for recounting of votes by both the Tribunal and also the High Court on the premise that a large number of votes might have wrongly been rejected. The margin of votes polled by the appellant vis-a-vis the 1st respondent, although would not be of much relevance but the said fact alone was not the basis for passing the impugned judgment. The 1st respondent herein not only lodged protests in regard to the manner in which the Presiding Officer counted the votes, but had also urged him to recount the votes. He had also given specific instances in respect thereof in his election petition. The Election Petitioner, further more, not only placed necessary facts in his election petition but also in his deposition before the Tribunal categorically stated that the Presiding Officer did not assign any reason for declaring a huge number of votes as invalid. He had also given specific instances in respect thereof in his election petition. The Election Petitioner, further more, not only placed necessary facts in his election petition but also in his deposition before the Tribunal categorically stated that the Presiding Officer did not assign any reason for declaring a huge number of votes as invalid. We have noticed hereinbefore that before the Tribunal a contention had been raised by the 1st respondent that 25 votes polled in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of the appellant by intermingling them with the ballot papers." 12. The petitioner in the E.O.P. aforesaid averred in paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 as hereunder: The petitioner was permanent resident of Tallapalem village and his name was enrolled in voters list of Tallapalem village. The Chief Election Commissioner of State of Andhra Pradesh issued notification for holding elections to Gram Panchayats. The petitioner filed his nomination and the same was accepted. Respondent No.5 was appointed as Election Officer to Tallapalem village. The petitioner and five other candidates contested for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat of Tallapalem. After scrutinization of nominations, the petitioner was allotted "HAT" symbol and the first respondent was allotted the symbol of "DOOR". Election was held on 02.8.2006 between 7-00 a.m. and 1-00 p.m. and after completion of polling, counting of votes was scheduled to be held between 2-00 p.m. and 5-00 p.m. The petitioner and the other contested candidates along with their respective agents attended to the counting of votes. Respondent No.5 first of all finished counting of votes of ward members and thereafter counting of votes polled for the post of Sarpanch. It is further averred that the votes, which were polled in favour of petitioner, were invalidated without any reasons. Similarly, the votes, which were polled in favour of the petitioner, were mixed with the votes, which were polled in favour of other candidates. The bundle of votes was not properly calculated. Respondent No.5 rejected some of the votes polled in favour of the petitioner on the ground that voter did not properly mark the votes. The total votes, which were polled in favour of the petitioner, were not counted properly. Respondent No.5 willfully added to the votes of the first respondent, the votes that were not in fact polled in favour of the first respondent. The total votes, which were polled in favour of the petitioner, were not counted properly. Respondent No.5 willfully added to the votes of the first respondent, the votes that were not in fact polled in favour of the first respondent. Whenever the petitioner objected the process of counting of votes, respondent No.5 had not responded to the same. It is also averred that after completion of counting of votes, respondent No.5 declared that respondent No.1 got 371 votes and the petitioner got 369 votes and the respondent No.1 was elected by margin of two votes only against the petitioner. The petitioner gave an application to respondent No.5 to conduct recounting of votes, but the 5th respondent refused for the same without any reason. Thereafter, petitioner sent applications to all the concerned officials, but no action was taken against respondent No.5. The agents and other candidates endorsed on the backside of the application of petitioner that the 5th respondent failed to recount the votes. The petitioner gave complaint to Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidadavole, that the 5th respondent committed malpractices in counting the votes. 13. Respondent No.1 filed counter no doubt admitting certain allegations relating to the contest of the parties, but specifically denying the other allegations. It was averred that the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to recount invalid votes after announcement of votes polled to each contesting candidate by the 5th respondent by mentioning the same in Form No.XXVI without signing and respondent No.5 recounted the invalid votes in the presence of petitioner, his counting agents and other agents. But, there was no change in the invalid votes. After that at about 5-00 p.m. the Election Officer declared respondent No.1 as elected as Sarpanch by margin of two votes and issued certificate of election under Form No.29 to respondent No.1. As per the notice in Form No.1, issued by respondent No.5, the first respondent as Sarpanch and other elected panchayat ward members attended the special meeting and participated in the election for Upa-Sarpanch and one Sare Sita elected and took oath as per Section 252 of the Panchayat Raj Act. On 02.8.2006 at about 9-00 p.m. the petitioner along with his supporters came to the 5th respondent and submitted a representation for recounting of total votes, which was endorsed by respondent No.5 that already recounting of invalid votes, took place and there was no scope for counting of votes again. On 02.8.2006 at about 9-00 p.m. the petitioner along with his supporters came to the 5th respondent and submitted a representation for recounting of total votes, which was endorsed by respondent No.5 that already recounting of invalid votes, took place and there was no scope for counting of votes again. As per the Rules 59 and 60 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to seek recounting of votes after the Election Officer signed on Form No.XXVI and also once the counting of votes wholly or partly taken place, the petitioner was estopped from seeking for recounting of votes of wholly or partly again. The petitioner also failed to deposit security cost as per Election Tribunal Rules prescribed under the Representation of People Act. The petitioner had deposited Rs.100/- for recounting charges only which was against to the Rule 5 (1) of Election Tribunal Rules of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The 5th respondent conducted counting process properly and, hence, the petition was liable for dismissal. 14. Likewise, respondent No.5 filed counter and respondents 2, 3 and 4 adopted the said counter of 5th respondent. Several of the averments made in the E.O.P. had been specifically denied. It was averred by respondent No.5 that after completion of votes, the 5th respondent mentioned the votes polled to each contesting candidate and invalid votes in Form No.XXVI and announced the same without signing on Form No.XXVI and waited for 15 minutes to announce the result. In the meanwhile, the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to recount the invalid votes. Accordingly, in the presence of all contesting candidates and M.R.O, respondent No.5 verified the invalid votes, but there was no change in the invalid votes. The respondent No.5 again announced the same result and signed on Form No.XXVI and at that time the petitioner and other candidates satisfied about the counting process and did not raise any objection. After that, respondent No.5 declared the first respondent as elected candidate by margin of 2 votes and issued certificate in Form No.29. Respondent No.5 issued notice to all the elected candidates in Form No.1 for the election of Upa- Sarpanch and conducted the election of Upa-Sarpanch. One Sare Sita was elected as Upa-Sarpanch and took oath. After that at about 9-00 p.m. the petitioner came to the 5th respondent and submitted a representation seeking recounting of total votes for which he refused. Respondent No.5 issued notice to all the elected candidates in Form No.1 for the election of Upa- Sarpanch and conducted the election of Upa-Sarpanch. One Sare Sita was elected as Upa-Sarpanch and took oath. After that at about 9-00 p.m. the petitioner came to the 5th respondent and submitted a representation seeking recounting of total votes for which he refused. As per Rule 60 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Election Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to seek for recounting of votes without following the procedure. It is also averred that the petition was liable for dismissal for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., the other four contested candidates and the Gram Panchayat. 15. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 had been recorded and Exs.A-1 to A-8 had been marked. Likewise, R.Ws.1 to 4 had been recorded; Exs.B-1 and B-2 had been marked. 16. The Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration at para 8. (1) Whether the counting of votes by the 5th respondent was according to the rules and regulations? (2) Whether the petitioner submitted the application to the 5th respondent before declaration of result for recounting of votes? (3) Whether this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of recounting of votes as prayed for? (5) To what relief? 17. The Tribunal while answering point No.3 came to the conclusion that when the petitioner is not seeking the relief to declare him as duly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat after setting aside the above said election result, the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that non-joinder of the other contesting candidates for the post of Tallapalem Gram Panchayat is bad and totally untenable. The Tribunal while answering points 1, 2 and 4 appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record relied on several decisions which had been cited by the parties, recorded reasons commencing from paras 12 to 39 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make a strong case to order recounting of the votes and accordingly while answering point No.5 came to the conclusion that the petition is liable to be dismissed and dismissed the same with costs. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the unsuccessful petitioner. 18. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the unsuccessful petitioner. 18. Rule 60 of the present Rules dealing with recount of votes reads as hereunder: "(1) After such announcement has been made under rule 59, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes wholly or in part stating the grounds on which, he demands such recount. (2) On such an application being made the Returning Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it wholly if it appears to him be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the Returning Officer under sub- rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefore. (4) If the Returning Officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow a recount of the votes either wholly or, in part he shall- (a) do the recounting in accordance with rule 56. (b) Amend the result sheet in Form-XXVI to the extent necessary after such recount; and (c) Announce the amendments so made by him. (5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidates has been announced under sub-rule (4), Returning Officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form - XXVI and no application for a further or second recount shall be entertained thereafter. 19. Rule 58 of the present rules, no doubt, deals with grounds for rejection of ballot papers. Certain submissions were made in relation to Rule 60 (5) of the Rules and reliance was placed on the decision in Smt. Sk. Khasim Bee V. The State Election Commissioner, Hyderabad and others and Y. Venkat Reddy V. Court of the District Munsif, Atmakur and others. Further reliance also was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari wherein the Apex Court observed at para 22 as hereunder. "A court of law cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction dehors the statutory law. Its discretion must be exercised in terms of the existing statute. Further reliance also was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari wherein the Apex Court observed at para 22 as hereunder. "A court of law cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction dehors the statutory law. Its discretion must be exercised in terms of the existing statute. In Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another [ (2004) 8 SCC 569 ], this Court, while dealing with a matter relating to grant of compensation by the High Court under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act in addition to the relief of specific performance in the absence of prayer made to that effect either in the plaint or amending the same at any later stage of the proceedings to include the relief of compensation in addition to the relief of specific performance, observed: "Grant of such a relief in the teeth of express provisions of the statute to the contrary is not permissible. On equitable consideration court cannot ignore or overlook the provisions of the statute. Equity must yield to law." 20. On the aspect of burden of proof, standard of proof and appreciation of evidence in election matters, no doubt, dealing with relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Reliance was placed on the decision in A. Younus Kunju V. R.S. Unni and others; and T.A. Ahammed Kabeer V. A.A. Azeez and others. 21. Sri Meherchand Noori also placed reliance on the under noted decisions. (1) V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and another (2) T.H. Musthaffa v. M.P. Varghese and others (3) Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Khachi and another (4) Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Shri Sheo Shanke Prasad Yadav and others (5) Pudi Krishnaveni v. Padala Padmavathi and others (6) Satish Chand v. Satya Prakash Vikal and others (7) Smt. Nakka Bhikhyamana v. Sri Aurovindo Dhali and others (8) Samant N. Balakrishna, etc., v. George Fernandez and others etc., (9) Sajjansingh Verma v. Surendra Verma and others (10) Badan Singh Raghuvanshi v. B. Rajgopal Naidu and another (11) Vijay Krishna v. Nitish Kumar and others (12) Ramdayal Prabhakar v. Mahendra Baudh and Twelve others (13) Smt. Sk. Khasim Bee v. State Election Commissioner, Hyderabad (14) China Narasappa v. Venkata Reddy and others (15) Gangaram v. State Election Commission and others (16) Y. Venkat Reddy v. Court of the District Munsif, Atmakur and others 22. Khasim Bee v. State Election Commissioner, Hyderabad (14) China Narasappa v. Venkata Reddy and others (15) Gangaram v. State Election Commission and others (16) Y. Venkat Reddy v. Court of the District Munsif, Atmakur and others 22. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Anajamma Vs. S. Pushpamma and another wherein the Division Bench at paras 26 and 27 observed as hereunder. "Rule 4(ii) of the Rules, 1995 as extracted above, clearly postulates that, the election petitioner if so desires in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidates, claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected in which case he shall join as respondents to his petition all other candidates. The said rule specifically says unless the election petitioner impleaded all the candidates who contested the election he cannot be declared as elected in the absence of such parties. Significantly though when the respondent impleaded other contesting candidates to the Election Petition but the advocate who representing her filed a memo withdrawing the Election Petition against the other contested candidate. In view of the infirmity, the first respondent is not entitled to any declaration to declare her elected as Sarpanch of Alwanpalli village. The Tribunal below committed an illegality in declaring the first respondent as duly elected candidate. The submission by the learned counsel for the respondent that ordering of recounting of votes by the Election Authority is illegal and when once the Election Tribunal sets aside that illegal order, upsetting the order passed by the Election Tribunal will amount to restoring the illegal order passed by the Election Authority is untenable and the same cannot be accepted for the reason that under Rule 35 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1994, if an announcement was made under sub-rule (7) of Rule 34, a candidate or in his absence his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the Officer for recounting of the votes either wholly or any part stating the grounds on which the demands such recounting. As per sub-rule (7) of Rule 34 after counting of all ballot papers contained in all ballot boxes, the Election Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet contained in Form No.17 and announce the particulars and only after announcing the particulars a candidate can ask for recounting in writing. The Election Officer, who is the third respondent in Election Petition, in the counter, admitted that he has not announced the particulars by making entries in Form No.17 in view of the instructions of the Election Authorities. In fact in the recounting, which took place on 21.10.1995 the writ petitioner secured more votes than the first respondent and Form No.17 was also signed by the first respondent without any protest. The first respondent has not pointed out any defect in the counting of votes nor any irregularities in the invalidation of the votes polled in her favour. If the argument of the learned Counsel is accepted, it would amount to allowing the first respondent as Sarpanch by virtue of order passed by the Tribunal, who admittedly secured less number of votes than the writ petitioner." 23. Reliance also was placed on the decision in Bathina Baby Jyotsna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayatraj Department and others 24. Reliance also was placed on the decision in Thurupu Vasantha v. Rudraboina Balamani and others wherein the learned Judge of this Court at para 22 observed as hereunder. "The challenge in the writ petitions is to the orders directing recounting. It is true that the Election Tribunal was compelled to pass these orders in view of the fact that the petitioner remained ex parte and there was no effective challenge to the version put forward by the respondents. However, even from a reading of the said orders, it is to be seen that except that the difference between the votes held by the petitioner, on one hand, and the respondents, on the other, was marginal and that the version of the respondents that the counting has taken place after the power failure, no other factors appear to have been taken into account by the Election Tribunal while ordering recounting. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in support of his contention that a direction for recounting is an extraordinary measure and can be undertaken only when a strong case is made out by the election petitioner. Though the petitioner is responsible to certain extent for the emergence of the orders challenged in the writ petitions, the absence of petitioner or her non- participation in the proceedings does not relieve the Court of the obligation to satisfy itself as to whether the case, as required under law, was made out for recounting. While reiterating the proposition of law that recounting has to be ordered only when a strong case is made out, this Court does not propose to discuss the facts of the present case with reference to that principle, for the reasons of propriety and the same are left out to be dealt with by the Election Tribunal itself. It is true that pursuant to the orders of the Election Tribunal, recounting is said to have taken place. The fact, however, remains that the final orders were not passed. The sanctity of an election cannot be disturbed except by strictly following the procedure prescribed by law. 25. This is not a case where any declaration that the petitioner should be duly declared as having been elected to the office of the Sarpanch had been prayed. No doubt, certain submissions were made in the context of Rule 60 (5) of the present rules and elaborate submissions were made in the light of Exs.A-4 and A-5, the recounting applications, and certain portions of the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.4 had been pointed out by the counsel representing the parties. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal had discussed the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence available on record in detail. Certain of the discrepancies and also absence of the pleas relating to certain facts also had been discussed in elaboration. 26. R.W.4, the Election Officer, deposed that after completion of counting of votes, the votes polled in favour of each candidate were filled directly in Form No.XXVI and he waited for 15 minutes after filling Form No.XXVI without signing on it from 4-30 p.m. to 4-45 p.m., but the said timing was not mentioned in his chief-examination affidavit. The petitioner submitted Ex.A-4 application to R.W.4. The petitioner submitted Ex.A-4 application to R.W.4. Underneath the endorsement made by him at page 1 of Ex.A4 he did not mention the time and he had taken about 5 minutes for reading the contents of Ex.A-4 and then made endorsement on it. It took 3 minutes for making the endorsement on Ex.A-4. Before making endorsement on Ex.A-4, R.W.4 made consultation with other polling staff. In Ex.A-4 the petitioner sought for recounting of votes. The endorsement under Ex.A-4 was made by him only regarding recounting of invalid votes and no mention was made regarding the recounting of votes. R.W.4 also deposed that he announced the result of the Sarpanch post by 5-30 p.m. There were 40 invalid votes. He did not sign on invalid votes and they were rejected as invalid. He gave notice to the elected candidates for conducting of election for the post of Upa-Sarpanch to be held at 6-00 p.m. M.R.O, Nidadavole, visited the counting centre as Route Officer appointed by the Government. The M.R.O visited the counting centre during recounting of invalid votes. He did not obtain any certificate from the M.R.O, Nidadavole that recounting of invalid votes had taken place before him properly. After completion of the counting of votes, he obtained the signatures of all the election agents that the counting process was undertaken to their satisfaction and the said forms were submitted in sealed cover to M.P.D.O., Office. He did not obtain any certificate from the petitioner, but he took them from his election agents. After declaration of the final result at 5-30 p.m. till 6-00 p.m. they served notices on the elected candidates for holding the meeting for election of Upa-Sarpanch at 6-00 p.m. Due to lack of quorum, the meeting could not be held at 6-00 p.m. Hence he conducted the said meeting at 7-00 p.m. The petitioner submitted ex.A-5 application to him. Sarpanch elected should also participate in the meeting for electing Upa-Sarpanch. But, directions were given to all the polling officers that oath should not be given to the Sarpanch elected for making him to participate in the election of Upa-Sarpanch. He gave Ex.A-6 acknowledgement on receipt of Ex.A-5 at the instance of the petitioner. He announced the final result for the post of Sarpanch at 5-30 p.m. and not at 6-30 p.m. as mentioned in Ex.A-6. In Ex.A-5 also petitioner requested for recounting of votes only. He gave Ex.A-6 acknowledgement on receipt of Ex.A-5 at the instance of the petitioner. He announced the final result for the post of Sarpanch at 5-30 p.m. and not at 6-30 p.m. as mentioned in Ex.A-6. In Ex.A-5 also petitioner requested for recounting of votes only. In Ex.A-6 there is no mention regarding recounting of total votes and why recounting of total votes was not done. There was difference of two votes between the winning and losing candidate. He did not count the votes even after receipt of two applications from the petitioner, since they were submitted after declaration of the result. This witness also deposed that it is not true to suggest that petitioner had complied all the election rules under the A.P. Panchayat Act for seeking recounting of votes. This witness also deposed that it is not true to suggest that number of malpractices and irregularities took place during the counting of votes and that he was deposing falsely and he did not apply his mind properly for taking a decision for recounting of votes on the applications submitted by the petitioner. 27. No doubt certain discrepancies in the evidence of R.Ws.2, 3 and 4 apart from the evidence of R.W.1 and also P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and certain admissions said to have been made by P.W.1 also had been pointed out. In the cross-examination by R-1, P.W.1 deposed that it is not mentioned in the petition filed by him that he was present at table No.4 as an agent. This witness also deposed that he is not having any enmity with the counting agents of the other contestants. When further cross-examined this witness P.W.1 also deposed that it is true it is not specifically mentioned on which table irregularity took place in counting of votes in his petition. This witness also deposed that it is not mentioned in his petition in whose votes his votes were intermingled. This witness also deposed that in his petition it is not specifically mentioned what type of malpractices and irregularities were committed by the 5th respondent during counting of votes. This witness also deposed that at present he does not remember how many votes polled in his favour were rejected by 5th respondent on the ground of proper mark was not made on the ballot paper. This witness also deposed that at present he does not remember how many votes polled in his favour were rejected by 5th respondent on the ground of proper mark was not made on the ballot paper. It is true that it is mentioned in para No.7 of his petition that the lodgment schedule for Rs.100/- is filed towards recounting charges. This witness also deposed that it is true subsequent to announcing the votes polled on his demand, the 5th respondent counted the invalid votes earlier declared. This witness also further deposed that it is true after recounting of the invalid votes the 5th respondent again stated the invalid votes were 40 and that they were properly counted. He does not know whether after recounting of invalid votes, the 5th respondent filled the contents of Form No.XXVI. This witness also deposed that it is true that in Ex.A-4 he did not mention the time at which he made the said application. It is true that he had mentioned in Ex.A-4 that earlier to that letter he gave a letter to the counting officer for recounting of invalid votes. This witness also deposed that it is true as seen from Ex.A-4 he made demand for recounting of votes as he lost the election by margin of two votes. After the endorsement on Ex.A-4 by the 5th respondent he did not represent in writing to respondent No.5 that he made a wrong endorsement that he applied for recounting of votes after declaration of the result. 28. P.W.1 also deposed that he gave second application for recounting of votes to respondent No.5 at 5-30 p.m. on 02.8.2006 and in the said application also he did not mention the time. Further, this witness deposed that it is not true to suggest that he gave second recounting application to respondent No.5 after declaration of result of Upa-Sarpanch election at about 9-00 on 02.8.2006. P.W.1 also deposed it is true that it is mentioned in Ex.A-6 5th respondent recounted the invalid votes on his demand and that the counting is completed and result is declared. After receipt of Ex.A-6 from the 5th respondent, he did not make any written representation to him. He sent a representation to the District Collector, West Godavari District, but he does not remember the correct date on which he sent the said representation through registered post. After receipt of Ex.A-6 from the 5th respondent, he did not make any written representation to him. He sent a representation to the District Collector, West Godavari District, but he does not remember the correct date on which he sent the said representation through registered post. Ex.A-8 is the copy of the representation made to the District Collector, West Godavari District. In Ex.A-8 he did not specifically mention what type of malpractices and irregularities committed by the 5th respondent at the time of counting of votes. In the further cross-examination for R-2 to R-5 certain facts had been elicited relating to the timings and also in relation to Ex.A-4 and the visit of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the presence of the Mandal Revenue Officer at the counting hall and the other facts. The specific two admissions made by P.W.1 relating to his demand made for counting of the invalid votes only had been highlighted and submissions in elaboration had been made by Sri Meherchand Noori, the counsel representing R-1 and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration representing R-2 to R-5 as well. 29. Sri S. Sri Ramachander Murthy, on the contrary, would maintain that when the language employed in Exs.A-4 and A-5 do not spell such a request merely because such a later point of time certain admissions made by P.W.1 cannot be taken advantage of, and when a statutory rule ordains a particular procedure to be followed, the same is bound to be followed and when the Court is satisfied that the same had been contravened irrespective of the other deficiencies, if any, the Election Tribunal always is empowered to order recounting. 30. It is needless to say that P.W.1 in chief-examination deposed the particulars averred in the E.O.P and P.W.2, the counting agent of the petitioner, and P.W.3 counting agent of other contesting candidate by name Subba Rao, P.W.4, the counting agent of other contesting candidate Jaddu Koteswara Rao also had been examined. This witness, no doubt, deposed about the counting process and made general allegations relating to the entire counting process and deposed that certain malpractices had been there during the counting. The agent of the contesting candidate, Yerra Seshavataram also had been examined. Certain discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses had been pointed out. This witness, no doubt, deposed about the counting process and made general allegations relating to the entire counting process and deposed that certain malpractices had been there during the counting. The agent of the contesting candidate, Yerra Seshavataram also had been examined. Certain discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses had been pointed out. It is needless to say that this evidence had been adduced for the purpose of establishing that all was not well during the counting and the counting process was not done in accordance with procedure. 31. R.W.1 deposed in detail in relation to the averments made in his counter. R.W.2 one of the contesting candidates also had deposed to the effect that the officer announced votes and invalid votes and at the time of counting nobody raised objection about the counting process and the Election Officer and staff continued counting according to rules. R.W.3, the counting agent of first respondent, deposed that he personally attended the counting hall as an agent of first respondent and the same was completed by 4-30 p.m. After completion of the counting process, the Election Officer announced votes polled to each of the contesting candidates and invalid votes and the counting process was done peacefully. 32. R.W.4, the 5th respondent, had deposed to the facts averred in his counter and what this witness had deposed in his cross-examination already had been specified above. It is needless to say that R.W.4 is the 5th respondent, the Election Officer. R.Ws.2 and 3 evidently had been examined in support of the stand taken by R.W.1 to the effect that the counting process went on peacefully and there were no irregularities. 33. On careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following are certain of the essentials to be taken note of. (1) The difference of votes in between the contesting candidates, the revision petitioner, the unsuccessful candidate; and first respondent, the successful candidate, is only two votes. (2) The fact that the petitioner made two applications Exs.A-4 and A-5 requesting for recounting also is not in serious dispute though the timings appear to be in some controversy. There is no doubt some controversy that one application was made after the declaration of the result. (3) The fact that P.W.1 made an admission to the effect that he made a request for recounting of invalid votes also is an important aspect. There is no doubt some controversy that one application was made after the declaration of the result. (3) The fact that P.W.1 made an admission to the effect that he made a request for recounting of invalid votes also is an important aspect. But, equally it is pertinent to note that such request cannot be spelt out from the contents of either Ex.A-4 or Ex.A-5. The fact that no specific relief to declare the petitioner as duly elected as such had been prayed for also is not in controversy. 34. No doubt in the light of the findings and also the discrepancies in the evidence in relation to Exs.A-4 and A-5, certain submissions were made in the light of Rule 60 (5) of the Rules the recounting at this stage cannot be ordered by the Tribunal. The other discrepancies in the oral evidence available on record need not be discussed in elaboration. 35. While following the view in Sohanlal v. Babu Gandhi [(2003) 1 SCC 109] the learned Judge of this Court in Vanguri Mariamma v. Kandukuri Gangamma and others while dealing with recounting of votes and validity thereof no doubt in the context of Rule 12 of the old Rules it was held that Election Tribunal can order recounting of votes during trial to adjudicate on the allegation made by Election petitioner that some votes which have to be rejected have been counted in favour of the elected candidate which is a factual aspect, even if no written application is made for such recounting of votes. 36. In P. Prabhavathi v. Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar District and another the learned Judge of this Court at paras 11 and 13 observed as hereunder: "The Tribunal has ample power to direct for recount of the votes polled in case the petitioner has made out a ground for the same. Non- submission of a written representation before the Election Officer for recounting, does not act as fetter on the part of the Election Tribunal in exercising the power in justifiable cases to order for recounting. The evidence brought on record clearly establishes that there are discrepancies with regard to the votes polled in respect of the contesting candidates and the total number of votes. Therefore, it is a fit case to order for recounting of the votes." 37. The evidence brought on record clearly establishes that there are discrepancies with regard to the votes polled in respect of the contesting candidates and the total number of votes. Therefore, it is a fit case to order for recounting of the votes." 37. It is not in serious controversy that either on Ex.A-4 or Ex.A-5 any intelligible reasons had been recorded by the Election Officer, R-5, who was examined as R.W.4. It is not the case of either of the parties that the contents of these applications would spell out for a demand or request for counting of the invalid votes. It is no doubt true that P.W.1 while deposing made such admission and on the strength of such admissions, which had been pointed out by Sri Meherchand Noori, elaborate submissions had been made. When at the earliest point of time a request had been made praying for counting of votes, the same cannot be taken as counting of invalid votes only and by taking advantage of an alleged admission made by P.W.1 in the course of cross-examination, the statutory mandate or the obligation cast on the officer cannot be watered down. In fact, similar view had been expressed by the learned Judge of this Court in the decision in P. Prabhavathi v. Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar District and another (27 supra). It is also pertinent to note that in the present matter no relief of declaration to declare him as duly elected had been prayed for. Even if the guidelines specified by the Apex Court if to be carefully examined and especially when the difference of votes is very very slender, normally when sufficient material is placed before the court, it would be just and proper on the part of the Tribunal to lean towards ordering of recounting of votes instead of negativing such relief. This Court is not inclined to lay down the broad proposition to the effect that when the margin is slender or trivial, necessarily in each and every matter the recounting to be ordered by the Tribunal, but however, that factor also may have to be taken into consideration while appreciating the other evidence available on record. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal had not adopted the correct approach in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 38. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal had not adopted the correct approach in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 38. It is made clear that while deciding the election dispute, the rigor of the statutory provisions cannot be lost sight of. In the light of the same the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal below to give opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their contentions by adducing further evidence if the parties choose to do so and record appropriate findings in the light of the views expressed by this Court supra. 39. The civil revision petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.