JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri P.C. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri M.C. Mishra appears for the respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. With the consent of parties, this writ petition was heard and is finally decided at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner-Om Prakash Upadhyay was elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Patahana, Block Sujanganj, District Jaunpur in the elections held on 23-8-2005. The results were declared on 28-8-2005. Both the petitioner as well as Shri Shobh Nath Pandey-respondent No. 4 secured 219 votes each. The result was thereafter declared, with the consent of both the parties, by draw of lots in which the petitioner was luckier than the respondent No. 4 and was declared elected. 3. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act) and also filed a Writ Petition No. 1751 of 2006, which was dismissed on the ground that the election petition has been filed, with a direction that the election petition be decided within one year. A written statement was filed on 7-4-2006. Four issues were framed on 18-4-2006 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur/Prescribed Authority. A transfer application filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur was rejected on 8-6-2006. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 32654 of 2006. The writ petition was dismissed on 20-6-2006. 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate summoned the records and ballot papers and directed for recount on 11-7-2006. A revision filed against the order under Section 12-C of the Act was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable against the interlocutory order. A Writ Petition No. 38138 of 2006, challenging both the order of recount and order in revision, was allowed by this Court on 24-7-2006 on the ground that no reasons were given in the order of the Prescribed Authority. The order of recount dated 7-7-2006 was quashed with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order in the matter of recount without granting unnecessary adjournments. 5. The order of recount dated 7-7-2006 was quashed with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order in the matter of recount without granting unnecessary adjournments. 5. The Prescribed Authority considered the matter afresh and directed recount of votes by order dated 10-10-2006 on the grounds that out of 595 ballot papers, 423 ballot papers were used at the polling station No. 85 Primary School Allaiya Part I and 275 ballot papers were used at the polling station No. 86 Primary School Allaiya Part II. In this manner a total of 423 + 275 i.e. 698 ballots were put in the ballot box whereas according to Schedule 4A of the year 2005 of Gram Panchayat Patahana, a total number of 736 valid votes were cast as against the used 747 votes. The Prescribed Authority found that at two polling stations, total 698 ballots were cast whereas 747 ballots were counted in which 736 ballot papers were found to be valid. The difference of 49 votes could affect the result of election. It was found that the counting was not done properly and that it will be in the interest of justice that the recount be directed. The recount took place on 11-10-2006. The entire process of recount was photographed with video camera. 6. In the recount of total number of 696 ballot papers were found and as against 11 invalid votes, it was found that a total number of 16 votes were invalid. A total number of 698 votes were found to be used by the electors. It was found that as against 747 votes in Schedule 4-A, only 696 votes were present in the ballot box. In Schedule 4A the candidate with election symbol ‘Anaj Osata Kisan’ was found to have polled 50 votes, whereas in the recount not a single vote was found in his favour. The Presiding Officer had wrongly mentioned that 698 votes were cast whereas actually 696 votes were present in the ballot box. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey-respondent No. 4 was found to have secured 217 votes as against 216 votes secured by Shri Om Prakash Upadhyaya. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey-respondent No. 4 was thus found to have secured one vote more than the petitioner in the order of recount and was declared to be elected. 7. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey-respondent No. 4 was found to have secured 217 votes as against 216 votes secured by Shri Om Prakash Upadhyaya. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey-respondent No. 4 was thus found to have secured one vote more than the petitioner in the order of recount and was declared to be elected. 7. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a revision under Section 12-C (6) of the Act. The revision was dismissed confirming the findings and the result of recount by the Prescribed Authority. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the counting after the elections was conducted in the presence of the District Magistrate in seven rounds and that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were found to have secured 219 votes each, and that the result was declared by lottery/toss system. The Sub Divisional Magistrate witnessed the draw of lots. He had no jurisdiction thereafter to decide the election petition himself and to direct the recount. The recounting was made illegally without following the legal requisites of the direction to recount. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur, 1995 All CJ 196, in which a Full Bench of this Court following the judgments in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, AIR 1975 SC 2117 ; Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 773; Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; Shashi Bhushan v. Prof. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 773; Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 ; Shashi Bhushan v. Prof. Balraj Madhok, AIR 1972 SC 1251 ; Sumitra Devi v. Shri Sheo Shanker Prasad Yadav, AIR 1973 SC 215 ; Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kahi, AIR 1975 SC 283 ; Baldeo Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 693 , and Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 , observed : “Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers; (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct 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 clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) 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 a 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.” 9. It was found by a Full Bench in Ram Adhar Singh that the High Court has consistently applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment in Charan Singh v. District Judge, Meerut and others, 1983 All. It was found by a Full Bench in Ram Adhar Singh that the High Court has consistently applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment in Charan Singh v. District Judge, Meerut and others, 1983 All. C.J. 324, in which similar principles were reiterated with a caution that a direction to recount of votes 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. 10. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent would submit that sufficient material was produced, which clearly made out a prima facie case of the unexplained discrepancy in the number of votes polled and number of votes counted. 11. In the present case, it was stated in paragraph-5 of the election petition that at the time of counting on the influence of certain leaders and influential person, undue pressure was exercised in which 13 valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner were added in the bundle of Shri Om Prakash Upadhyay. The counting agent of the election petitioner was forcibly turned out from the hall after he made written application against the illegalities in the counting. It was also stated in paragraph-7 that three illegal votes were added in the votes of Shri Om Prakash Sharma. The petitioner has secured 219, Ashok Kumar 71, Harish Chandra 47, Indira Devi 58, Ratnakar Pandey 65, Anita Devi 05 and Mahant 08, and that 06 ballot papers were found to be invalid. The respondent No. 3, after earlier order of recount was set aside by this Court, considered the evidence on the four issues including the issues whether any illegality was conducted in counting of the ballot papers. From a perusal of the material produced, namely Scheduled 4A, and the number of ballot papers used at both the polling stations, it was found that a total number of 698 ballots were cast at the two polling stations, as against 747 entered in Schedule 4A out of which 736 were found to be valid. This unexplained discrepancy in the total number of votes used and counted was the basis of the order of recount. This unexplained discrepancy in the total number of votes used and counted was the basis of the order of recount. This material would fall within the grounds of recount approved by the decisions in the Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Adhar’s case. The allegations were clear and specific and on the material produced by the petitioner, the tribunal was prima facie satisfied regarding the truth of the allegations for recount. The tribunal found that it was necessary and imperative to do full justice of recount of votes. 12. There is substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent that taking into account the fact that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were found to have secured equal number of votes, the Prescribed Authority used caution and proceeded to consider the application of recount in the light of observations made in the judgment of this Court dated 24-7-2006 in Writ Petition No. 38138 of 2006. 13. There are no allegations of mala fides, pleaded with sufficient particulars against the Prescribed Authority. The fact, that he was present when the lots were drawn, is not sufficient ground to infer mala fides or to suggest that he should not have heard the election petition or ordered recount of votes. No such objection was taken before him to secure himself from the case. 14. When the difference of votes is very narrow as also the cases where there is no difference in the number of votes and a lottery system has been adopted for declaration of result of the election, the Prescribed Authority, has to exercise greater caution in examining the material to support the allegations for recount of votes. When the Prescribed Authority finds that the number of ballots used and number of ballots counted was not properly explained and that the election record was not properly maintained, the prudence requires that in order to do complete justice between the parties the votes should be recounted. In the present case, the Prescribed Authority did not commit any illegality in recount of votes. The procedure and result of the recount by the Prescribed Authority has not been challenged. 15. The writ petition is dismissed. ————