Judgment :- Elections to the Gram Panchayat, Kurichedu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, were held on 02-08-2006. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 5 contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.3 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Darsi. He pleaded that certain irregularities have taken place, in the course of counting of votes, and that the 6th respondent, who functioned as Assistant Election Authority, did not follow the correct procedure. It was stated that though the postal ballots were to be counted first, according to the Election Manual; the 6th respondent counted them at the end. It was urged that though the 1st respondent secured majority of votes, the result was changed, on account of the illegal counting of postal ballots. An allegation was made to the effect that the postal ballots were manipulated. Another complaint of the 1st respondent was, that the counting of votes was undertaken one day after the polling was held. Ultimately, the 1st respondent prayed for, a) recounting of votes, b) setting aside of the election of the petitioner, and c) declaration that he has been elected. 2. The petitioner contested the matter by filing a counter-affidavit. He pleaded that the correct procedure was followed at every stage of election process, and that the 1st respondent did not raise any objection, at any point of time. The allegation as to manipulation of postal ballots was denied. The Election Authority also filed a separate counter-affidavit, stating that no irregularities have taken place during the course of counting of votes. 3. Through its order dated 21-07-2008, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. It rejected the prayer for recounting of votes, but has set aside the election of the petitioner, and declared the 1st respondent, as having been elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Consequential directions were issued to the Election Authorities, to take necessary steps. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal. 4. Sri. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in clear and categorical terms, the 1st respondent prayed for recounting of votes, including the postal ballots, and any relief could have been granted by the Tribunal, only as a consequence of recounting. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal. 4. Sri. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in clear and categorical terms, the 1st respondent prayed for recounting of votes, including the postal ballots, and any relief could have been granted by the Tribunal, only as a consequence of recounting. He contends that the Tribunal negatived the prayer for recounting, but still, had set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the 1st respondent as elected. He submits that even while granting such a relief, the Tribunal has seriously erred in recording findings, which are contrary to the pleadings of the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that, while the 1st respondent prayed for recounting of postal ballots also, the Tribunal gave a finding to the effect that the postal ballots are invalid. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the very approach of the Tribunal is untenable, and its conclusions are not supported by the evidence and material on record. 5. Sri S. Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that it was elaborately pleaded in the election petition itself, that the postal ballots were manipulated to topsy-turvy the results, and that the Tribunal had examined that issue, and recorded the findings. He contends that it was established by the 1st respondent that serious irregularities have taken place, not only in the matter of counting of postal ballots, but also as regards the issuance and receipt thereof. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Tribunal had protected the purity of election process, and that the mere technicality in relation to the pleadings and prayer cannot be a ground to interfere with the order in the O.P. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 2,3 and 4 submits that every step, during the course of election was taken in accordance with law. It is pleaded that the process of counting has spilled over beyond midnight, right in the presence of the petitioner, and it cannot be said that the counting was undertaken on the next day. 7. It is pleaded that the process of counting has spilled over beyond midnight, right in the presence of the petitioner, and it cannot be said that the counting was undertaken on the next day. 7. The gist of the pleadings in the election petition, filed by the 1st respondent, was, that, 4546 votes were polled in the election, and that the counting of votes for ward members, was concluded at about 11:00 p.m. The counting of votes for the office of Sarpanch is said to have been started at 12:00 midnight. It was stated that out of 4546 votes, the 1st respondent secured 2133, the petitioner, 2124, and the 5th respondent, 118 votes; and 169 votes were declared in invalid. He pleaded that, instead of declaring the results, on the basis of the said figures, the 6th respondent, with an objective to help the petitioner herein; delayed the declaration of results, till early in the morning. It was alleged that the 6th respondent announced that he received 28 postal ballots, out of which, three are in favour of the 1st respondent and 25, in favour of the petitioner, and on that basis, declared the results. A request made for recounting, is said to have, not been acceded to. No other grounds, such as, malpractices, wrongful acceptance and rejection of nomination; were urged. The petitioner and other contesting respondents denied the allegation. The Tribunal identified, for its determination, the following points: 1) “Whether 6th respondent i.e. Election Officer has committed illegalities in reounting of votes of Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayat elections? 2) Whether 28 ballot papers were not properly issued and there is invalid as alleged by petitioner? 3) Whether 6th respondent has committed illegality not accepting request of petitioner for recount of all Sarpanch votes including invalid votes? 4) Whether 6th respondent has validated 60 invalid votes in favour of 4th respondent? 5) Whether 6th respondent has illegally invalidated 15 valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner? 6) Whether petitioner is entitled to seek for recount all Sarpanch including Votes? 7) Whether the 28 postal ballots are to be invalidated as alleged by the petitioner? 8) Whether election of 4th respondent as Sarpach Kurichedu Gram Panchayat is liable for set-aside? 9) Whether petitioner is entitled himself declared as Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayat?” 8. 6) Whether petitioner is entitled to seek for recount all Sarpanch including Votes? 7) Whether the 28 postal ballots are to be invalidated as alleged by the petitioner? 8) Whether election of 4th respondent as Sarpach Kurichedu Gram Panchayat is liable for set-aside? 9) Whether petitioner is entitled himself declared as Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayat?” 8. On behalf of the 1st respondent PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. The petitioner deposed as RW-1 and the 6th respondent deposed as RW-3. Another witness, by name, M. Subba Reddy, was examined as RW-2. The Form of declaration of results was marked as Ex.R-1. Ultimately, the election petition was allowed, in the manner mentioned in the previous paragraphs. 9. In View of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, the following questions arise for consideration in this writ petition: a) Whether the counting of postal ballots at the end, would have the effect of vitiating the result of the election, and b) Whether it was competent for the Tribunal to set aside the election of the petitioner, without directing recounting of votes. 10. The 1st respondent expressed his serious grievance vis-à-vis the Election Officer, the 6th respondent herein, and, in fact, made him as a party by name. The whole controversy was, about the method of counting of votes. Here again, he did not have any grievance, as regards the counting of votes, that are polled in the station, and his dissatisfaction was, about the manner in which, the postal ballots were counted. There is no serious dispute, as to the number of votes, polled to the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other. If the postal ballots are to be excluded from consideration, the 1st respondent was entitled to be declared as elected. It is the postal ballots, that made all the difference. Here itself, it is necessary to mention that, under the relevant provisions of the Election Manual, postal ballots have to be counted first, and those, polled in the polling stations, later. Rules 56 and 57 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006, are clear, in this regard. It is a matter of record that the postal ballots were counted at the end. 11. The Legislature, be it, principal, or subordinate; prescribes the procedure for adjudication of election disputes. Rules 56 and 57 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006, are clear, in this regard. It is a matter of record that the postal ballots were counted at the end. 11. The Legislature, be it, principal, or subordinate; prescribes the procedure for adjudication of election disputes. Apart from providing the forum for adjudication, the legislature also identified the grounds or proof, on which, the election can be set aside. Though various steps are involved in the process of election, ranging from preparation of votes’ list, to declaration of results, every omission or non-compliance, by itself, does not lead to annulment of the mandate of the electorate. Specific acts or omissions are identified as the grounds, as constituting the basis; if proved, to set aside an election. For example, the wrongful acceptance or rejection of nomination is treated as a ground under Rule 58. The very fact that the Rules are silent, as to the consequence of any minor omission, in the process of counting, indicates that the Legislature did not treat them as bases, for setting aside the election. Therefore, though it is an admitted fact, that the postal ballots were counted at the end, and that the same is contrary to the prescribed Rules, such a lapse, by itself, cannot constitute a ground, to set aside the election of the petitioner. 12. There is some uncertainty, as to the stand of the 1st respondent, vis-à-vis the ballot papers. In the body of the election petition, he raised an objection, as to the legality of the postal ballots. However, when it comes to the question of relief, he specifically wanted them to be taken into consideration, in the recounting. The effect thereof would be dealt with, in a detailed manner, while discussing the next question. 13. Suffice it to say, that the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent was directed, mostly against the 6th respondent, as to the manner of counting of votes, and no specific ground, recognized under the Rules, for setting aside the election, was proved. 14. Now comes the second question. 13. Suffice it to say, that the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent was directed, mostly against the 6th respondent, as to the manner of counting of votes, and no specific ground, recognized under the Rules, for setting aside the election, was proved. 14. Now comes the second question. The discussion on this aspect must start with the reproduction of the prayer made in the election petition, by the 1st respondent: “The petitioner therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass orders:- a) Ordering recount of all the votes polled for the post of the Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayath including 28 postal ballot votes and to declare the petitioner as the duly elected Sarpanch of Kurechudu Gram Panchayath after recounting votes and to set aside the election of the 4th respondent as the duly elected Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayath. b) Restraining the 4th respondent from acting as the Sarpanch of Kurichedu Gram Panchayath during the pendency of the petition. c) Directing the respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioner. d) To pass such other relief’s as the Hon’ble Court deem and proper grant under the circumstances of this petition”. 15. This prayer, in a way, is not fully supported by the pleadings. For instance, in para- (e) of the election petition, the 1st respondent pleaded as under: “---It is submitted that the 28 ballot papers were manipulated by Sanum Pudi Ravi, which is working as M.R.P in MDO’s office, Kurichedu, using his official position and the postal ballots produced were not properly certified by the competent authority and as such they are invalid and the 6th respondent could not have taken them into consideration…” At another place, in the same paragraph, he pleaded, “…If the 28 postal ballot papers which were not in proper form, are to be eliminated, the petitioner would have won the election with a majority of 9 votes…” 16. However, as is evident from the prayer, that the 1st respondent wanted the recounting of the votes, including those 28 ballot papers, to be undertaken. It hardly needs any mention that, what becomes important is the prayer, and the purpose of pleadings is only to create basis for the prayer. However, as is evident from the prayer, that the 1st respondent wanted the recounting of the votes, including those 28 ballot papers, to be undertaken. It hardly needs any mention that, what becomes important is the prayer, and the purpose of pleadings is only to create basis for the prayer. In view of the specific prayer of the 1st respondent, that recounting of votes, including those, of postal ballots, be undertaken, framing of a point, by the Tribunal, as to the validity of 28 votes, was totally untenable. 17. Election petitions are treated almost as quasi criminal in nature, in view of the fact that the setting aside of election could have the effect of reversing the mandate of voters of the constituency. Utmost care has to be taken in adjudication of such matters. When the prayer of the 1st respondent was itself, for recounting of votes, polled in the booth, and postal ballots, the Tribunal ought to have focused its attention in that direction. Instead, it took upon itself, the task of pronouncing upon the validity of 28 postal ballots. In case the 1st respondent was particular about pursuing the remedy, vis-à-vis the postal ballots, it was always open to him, to amend the election petition. As long as the prayer remained the same, it was not all competent for the Tribunal to decide up to the validity of the 28 postal ballots. 18. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal discloses that, it had declared the postal ballots as invalid, and straightway proceeded to set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the 1st respondent as having been elected. 19. When a specific prayer is made for recounting of votes, and other relief’s are claimed as consequential; or ancillary, it is just impossible for the Tribunal to set aside an election, without undertaking the recounting. Further, recounting of votes is not a matter of course. Strong case has to be made out, to convince the Court, to undertake recounting. The reason is that, recounting of votes would meddle with the secrecy of ballots. Unless grounds recognized in law, are proved, to the satisfaction of the Court, or Tribunal recounting cannot be ordered. 20. Howsoever reasoned and justifiable, the conclusion arrived at by a Court/Tribunal, may be, they can arrive at them, only when prayed for, by an aggrieved party. The reason is that, recounting of votes would meddle with the secrecy of ballots. Unless grounds recognized in law, are proved, to the satisfaction of the Court, or Tribunal recounting cannot be ordered. 20. Howsoever reasoned and justifiable, the conclusion arrived at by a Court/Tribunal, may be, they can arrive at them, only when prayed for, by an aggrieved party. One of the factors that distinguishing the Legislature from Judiciary is, that, while the former can legislature upon a matter, without reference to any specific acts or omissions, and some time, in contemplation of future eventualities, a Court can express its view, on an issue, only when a specific prayer is made, in a properly constituted proceedings. Further no Court or Tribunal can grant relief to an individual, more than what is prayed for, in the concerned application. 21. Assuming that the 1st respondent proved every fact, pleaded by him, in the election petition, the discretion of the Tribunal, in the matter of granting the relief was circumscribed by the prayer in the election petition. The starting point in this regard was, to consider, whether a case is made our, for recounting of the votes. The reason is that recounting of votes was itself, an independent prayer. It is only after a finding is recorded on this aspect, and recounting as such was undertaken, that an occasion to pronounce upon the validity of the election of the petitioner would have arisen. Conversely, without undertaking recounting, there would not have been an occasion or basis for the Tribunal, to interfere with the results of election. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not address itself, to these aspects, and has straightaway proceeded to set aside the election of the petitioner, without giving any findings, as to the necessity to recount the votes much less undertaking the exercise of recounting of votes. The relief granted by the Tribunal is totally outside and beyond the scope of the Election Petition. 22. The Writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the order in O.P. No.3 of 2006 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.