B. PRAKASH RAO, J :-Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy. the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.9 and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayats, and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful petitioner, in a writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of certiorari assailing the orders in E.OP. No.8 of 2006, dated 3.7.2008, on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. The facts, which gave rise to these proceedings, are that in an election held on 2.8.2006 the appellant herein was successfully elected as Sarpanch of P. Vemavaram Gram Panchayat of Samalkota Mandal, East Godavari District. The respondent No.9 is the unsuccessful candidate, who contested against the appellant herein challenging the said election by filing Election OP No.8 of 2006, before the Election Tribunal-cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 4. After filing of the counter on behalf of the appellant herein and funning the points for consideration, the trial therein commenced wherein the respondent No.9/election petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and no other evidence was produced nor any documents are marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondents in the said election petition the Election Officer was examined as RW.1 and marked documents in Exs.B 1 to B4. At this juncture, the respondent No.9 has sought for recounting of the polled votes and consequently to set aside the declaration of the appellant as Sarpanch. The case of the respondent No.9, at that juncture was that having regard to the evidence available on record, and especially supported by the version as spoken to by the Election Officer viz., RW.1, there are certain valid grounds, which calls for recounting. It was pointed out from the deposition of RW.1 that from the documents which are marked in Exs.B 1 to B4 there are variations and corrections, which cast a serious and suspicious doubt about 60 votes and therefore it necessitates the recounting. 5. It was pointed out from the deposition of RW.1 that from the documents which are marked in Exs.B 1 to B4 there are variations and corrections, which cast a serious and suspicious doubt about 60 votes and therefore it necessitates the recounting. 5. The appellant herein opposed the said request on the ground that neither there exists any foundation in the pleadings specifically in regard to the votes nor any particulars were given and there being no relief sought for recounting in the main petition, the very request is not sustainable. 6. On considering the rival submissions, the Election Tribunal allowed the main petition partly ordering for recounting of the votes polled to the said post of Sarpanch and directed to produce all the ballot boxes and relevant election material relating to the said post for counting before the Court, in the presence of all the contesting candidates and their Counsels and Election Authority fixing the date for recounting on 2.8.2008. While allowing the said recounting, the Election Tribunal found that prima facie the petitioner therein, namely respondent No.9, has made his case about the alleged corrections in Exs.B2 to B3 as seen from the cross-examination of RW.1 and his failure to explain the same properly, and even according to him, the suspicious votes are kept in a separate draw, and further that Exs.B2 and B3 documents and the alleged corrections create doubt with regard to the counting process and there exists suspicious circumstances in view of the corrections in the said Exs.B2 and B3. 7. Assailing the same, the appellant had filed this writ petition challenging the very objection to the exercise as ordered. After contest by the respondents herein, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that conclusion as arrived at by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence available on record, and therefore no interference is warranted by this Court under exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction even though it is possible to take different opinion. Hence, this appeal. 8. The learned Senior Counsel D. Prakash Reddy, submitted that even though he has urged various points in support of the writ, however, the same are not properly considered nor answered. Hence, this appeal. 8. The learned Senior Counsel D. Prakash Reddy, submitted that even though he has urged various points in support of the writ, however, the same are not properly considered nor answered. According to him, the very relief as sough now not being based on the pleadings and evidence cannot be acceded to and more so in the absence of any proper objection being raised by way of application before the Election Officer for recounting as provided under Rule 35 of the Election Rules, no such relief can be granted. Further, it is also his case that ordering of recounting on mere asking without proper foundation being laid in the pleadings and consequent evidence in support, the same is not permissible. 9. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No.9/election petitioner sought to sustain the orders of the Election Tribunal and also that of the learned Single Judge on the ground that having regard to the prima facie irregularities, doubts and suspicious circumstances as supported by the evidence of RW.1 himself, this Court cannot interfere with the same, and further necessarily the recounting is the proper exercise on the facts and circumstances. 10. Having considered the submissions made on both sides and also on perusal of the material the point, which arise for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, any exercise for recounting of the votes polled is sustainable? 11. There is no doubt in regard to the events leading to the present election petition where the challenge is made to the election of the appellant herein as Sarpanch of the village. There is no serious dispute on behalf of the respondent No.9 that in the main election petition no specific averments are made nor any allegations are culled out in respect of doubtful or illegal votes nor any specific prayer is made in the election petition for recounting. The Counsel on either side has read out the contents of the entire election petition as filed by the respondent No.9. A reading thereof, it is quite amply makes clear that any prayer for recounting was sought for nor any specific averments or allegations are made in the election petition in regard to the votes as pointed out. The Counsel on either side has read out the contents of the entire election petition as filed by the respondent No.9. A reading thereof, it is quite amply makes clear that any prayer for recounting was sought for nor any specific averments or allegations are made in the election petition in regard to the votes as pointed out. The question as to whether such petition can be taken at this late hour in the absence of any proper application filed before the Election Officer is germane and the same can be taken up for consideration for disposal of the main election petition. However, the fact remains that admittedly the respondent No.9 tried to shortcut the entire process of the election petition by seeking a relief of recounting as seen from within the version as spoken to by RW.1 in regard to such events and the other documents filed by him. There is no serious challenge to this aspect. It is his case that having regard to such specific averment made by RW.1 himself, which cast serious spell of doubt and lead to serious suspicious circumstances, and therefore it warrants an exercise of recounting. Thus, ultimately the point which crops up for consideration in these proceedings is as to whether even though the main petition does not cover a specific relief nor any averment, but if during the process of trial and enquiry, if it can be made from out of the depositions and if it comes forth from record to seek for any recounting, can recounting be allowed ? 12. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M Mappillai Mohindeen and others, AIR 1989 SC 640 , considering the election petition filed under the Tamilnadu Panchyats Act (35 of 1958), it was held: "THUS the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interest of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes. VIEWED in the light of these well enunciated principles, we find that the petitioner has neither made such averments in the petition nor adduced evidence of such a compulsive nature as could have made the Tribunal reach a prima facie satisfaction that there was adequate justification for the secrecy of ballot being breached in the petitioner's case. Factors urged before us by Mr. Padamanabhan such as that the first respondent had accepted the correctness of the recount, and that he had conceded his defeat and wanted a re-election to be held cannot constitute justifying materials in law for the initial order of recount of votes made by the Tribunal." 13. Subsequently, in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh and another, 2006 (5) ALD 12 (SC), once again considering similar such question, the Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines: "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, AIR 2006 SC 1791 ; M Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanlsamy IT 2003 (9) SC 161 = 2004 ALD 216 (SC); Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 2036 and Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan and others, AIR 2006 SC 1218 ]." 14. From the above, it clearly follows that unless until such conditions exists and factors support, the question of recounting does not arise. In this case, admittedly the respondent No.9/the election petitioner did not seek for relief of recounting in the main Election Petition nor any material facts are pleaded in regard to the votes in respect of any irregularities, and having regard to the same, any ordering of recounting would be a clear violation of secrecy of ballot paper and virtually converting one petition into that of another by ordering a roving and fishing inquiry. Thus, therefore it transpires that even if anything comes out during the course of the trial that itself would not constitute ground for granting any relief or assail the election, necessarily, it follows that any relief be it through a main election petition or any such interlocutory application, necessarily, it should rest and base with . proper foundation in the pleadings, prayer and then the material in support, without which, the entire exercise is totally beyond, not only, the scope of the election as is felt and framed by the respondent No.9 herein but also beyond the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the orders dated 30.7.2008 of the learned Single Judge made in WP No.16093 of 2008 and the order dated 3.7.2008 made in EOP No.8 of 2006, on the file of Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District are set aside. The Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District shall proceed to dispose of the main election petition EOP No.8 of 2006 from the stage it was left, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the sides. No costs.