JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby he has directed for recounting of votes in a pending election petition of Gram Panchayat before him after hearing the parties. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that election of Village Pradhan was held in June, 2005, in which the petitioner was declared elected Pradhan of Village-(Morna (Agahpur) Tehsil Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. The respondent No. 2 challenged the result of aforesaid election through Election Petition No. 5 of 2005 on various allegations made in the election petition contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The petitioner contested the election petition by filing his written statement denying the allegations made in the said election petition, inter alia, alleging that there was no irregularity in the election held and the petition is malafide and based on vague allegations. Other candidates who are opposite parties in the election petition have personal grudge against the petitioner, as such filed affidavits in support of respondent No. 2 alleging that they were present at the time of counting of votes and were witness for interference by the petitioner and his relative in improper counting of votes, according to which the entire election was proved to be illegal. After filing of the affidavits by the opp. parties in the election petition who had contested the election petition against the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application on 15.7.2006 for permitting them to cross-examine the deponents of said affidavits. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 filed objection against the said application of the petitioner alleging that the application filed by the petitioner was malafide and just to delay the hearing of election petition. The respondent No. 1 the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15.7.2006 rejected the application on the ground that the application was just to delay the proceeding. Another application was also moved by the petitioner on 4.8.2006 alleging that the allegations made in the election petition are vague and no material particulars are given in the election petition, as such the said petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The respondent No. 1 dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.8.2006 only on the ground that the petitioner had moved the application just to delay the proceeding of election petition. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated 15.7.2006 and 17.8.2006 the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 55042 of 2006 which has been dismissed by this Court on 10.10.2006. Thereafter in pending election petition the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 moved an application for recount of votes. The respondent No. 1 has allowed the said application solely on the ground that if counting was correct and according to rules then it would not harm if the votes are recounted and it would further strengthen that the election was free and fair. It is stated that the evidence is yet to be adduced by the respective parties in the said election petition and in absence of evidence the respondent could not have passed the order for recount of votes. 3. Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.C. Mandhyan for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari for respondent No. 2. 4. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in nut shell are that the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority is wholly erroneous and illegal for the reason that on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations made in the election petition it was highly improper to direct for recounting of votes, as there was no specific allegation with material particulars regarding irregularities committed while counting of votes and secondly there was no evidence to support the aforesaid allegations and that the affidavits filed by the respondents and their counting agents before the prescribed authority in respect of irregularity or illegality while counting of votes could not be taken into account while directing for recounting of votes. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. However, contrary to it learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that there were specific allegations with material particulars in respect of irregularities committed by the election authorities while counting of votes, therefore, it cannot be said that the recounting was directed on the basis of vague, frivolous and indefinite allegations. 5. However, contrary to it learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that there were specific allegations with material particulars in respect of irregularities committed by the election authorities while counting of votes, therefore, it cannot be said that the recounting was directed on the basis of vague, frivolous and indefinite allegations. Further in the election petition the allegations of corrupt practice as well as illegalities committed while counting of votes have been specifically made and in support of the allegation of improper counting of votes, the affidavits have also been filed by other respondents as well as counting agents of respondent No. 2 and after satisfying about the truthfulness of allegations in respect of illegalities in counting of votes in order to do complete justice between the parties the Prescribed Authority has rightly directed for recounting of votes. It is further submitted that in case the election petition can be disposed of merely on the ground of recounting of votes, it is not necessary for the Election Tribunal/Prescribed Authority to go into details of corrupt practice done by the returned candidates during the course of election as alleged in the election petition and the time of Prescribed Authority would be saved thereby. It is wrong notion of law that the Prescribed Authority can direct recounting of votes only after trial of entire election petition and after adducing the entire evidence by the parties of the said election petition. 6. In view of rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the questions arise for consideration are that as to whether the election petition contains material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded and as to whether the parties have adduced any evidence or material on the basis of which prescribed authority could prima facie find good ground for believing that there has been irregularities or illegalities in counting and order for recounting was necessary to do complete justice between the parties. But before dealing the aforesaid questions in context of the case in hand it is necessary to notice some cases cited by learned counsel for the parties. 7. But before dealing the aforesaid questions in context of the case in hand it is necessary to notice some cases cited by learned counsel for the parties. 7. In Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and others, (2002) 3 SCC 457 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the circumstances warranting for recounting of votes in election petition under the provisions of Representation of People Act 1951 observed that it is for the applicant to establish his case of irregularities and illegalities committed in the counting of votes. In absence of any evidence the application for recounting of votes cannot be allowed. In the said case Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, (1980) 2 SCC 537 : AIR 1980 SC 206 , wherein it was observed that the relief of recounting cannot be granted merely on possibility of there being an error in counting of votes. The allegations must not only be clearly made but also be proved by cogent evidence. In para 12 of Mahendra Pal’s case the Apex Court has quoted the observations made by Apex Court in at page 547-48 R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai as under : “The Court wold be justified in ordering re-count of the ballot papers only where : (1) The election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) The Court 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.” 8. In S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1362 , while dealing with the question of recount of votes, in para 13 of the decision Supreme Court observed as under : - “13. Secrecy of ballot undoubtedly is an indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. In S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1362 , while dealing with the question of recount of votes, in para 13 of the decision Supreme Court observed as under : - “13. Secrecy of ballot undoubtedly is an indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. A voter had to be statutorily assured that he would not be compelled to disclose by any authority as to for whom he voted so that a voter may vote without fear or favour and is free from any apprehension of its disclosure against his will from his own lips.” 9. However, in para 22 and 23 of the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under : “22. Secrecy of ballot was mooted to ensure free and fair elections. If the very secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair elections strikes at the root of the principle of free and fair elections this basic postulate of democracy would be utilised for undoing free and fair elections which provide life-blood to parliamentary democracy. If secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair elections is used, as is done in this case, to defeat the very public purpose for which it is enacted, to suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to defend a crime, viz., forgery of ballot papers, this principle of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair elections. 23. Secrecy of ballot though undoubtedly a vital principle for ensuring free and fair elections, it was enshrined in law to subserve the larger public interest, namely, purity of election for ensuring free and fair election. The principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair elections, viz., purity of election. They can co-exist but as stated earlier, where one is used to destroy the other, the first one must yield to principle of purity of election in langer public interest. In fact secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, is not inviolable and may be waived by him as a responsible citizen of this country to ensure free and fair election and to unravel foul play.” 10. In Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan, 2006 All. In fact secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, is not inviolable and may be waived by him as a responsible citizen of this country to ensure free and fair election and to unravel foul play.” 10. In Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan, 2006 All. C.J. 707 the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the conditions in which recounting of votes can be directed, held that recounting should not be ordered as a matter of course, rather a very strong case for recounting has to be made out by the election petitioner. The pertinent observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 9 of the said decision are quoted as under : “This Court after referring to a number of prior decisions, has held in Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and others, JT 2002 (2) SC 396; (2002) 3 SCC 457 , that an order for recounting cannot be made as a matter of course. Unless the election petition had laid the foundation and there was clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner, a recount normally could not be ordered. In Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2004 (4) SC 264; (2204) 6 SCC 331, relying on an earlier decision in M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and others, (JT 2003 (9) SC 161; (2004) 6 SCC 341 ), bench of three Judges (to which one of us S.B. Sinha, J was a party) held that an election petition seeking recount must contain a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. It was held that a small margin of victory by itself was not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry was not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers had also to be kept in mind before directing a recount.” 11. It was held that a small margin of victory by itself was not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry was not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers had also to be kept in mind before directing a recount.” 11. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others, 1985 ACJ 196 has considered the question of recounting of votes under the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, where in paras 10 and 11 of the said decision the Full Bench of this Court has quoted the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamli Kidwai and others, AIR 1964 SC 1249 as under : “10. In the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamli Kidwai and others, AIR 1964 SC 1249 , the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar question arising under the Representation of the people Act, held that before an authority or Court dealing with an election petition is not to look in to or direct inspection of ballot papers unless following two conditions co-exist : (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case (the petition meets the requirement of Section 83 (I) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of the election Petition), and (ii) The Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. 11. In this connection, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court went on to observe thus : “ But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with provisions supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection.” 12. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection.” 12. In para 12 of the said decision the Full Bench of this Court has taken note of other decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and quoted the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 . The pertinent observations made in para 12 of the said decision in its entirety are quoted as under : “In the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 , the Supreme Court approved the principles for inspection of ballot papers laid down in Ram Sewak’s case and after noticing its decisions in the cases of Dr. Jagit Singh v. Gaini Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 , Shashi Bhushan v. Prof. Jagit Singh v. Gaini Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 , Shashi Bhushan v. Prof. Balraj Madhok, AIR1972 SC 1251, Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi, AIR SC 283, Baldeo Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 693 and Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 , the Court observed thus : "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 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.” 13. In para 16 of the said decision the Full Bench of this Court has observed as under : “16. In para 16 of the said decision the Full Bench of this Court has observed as under : “16. Applying the principle with regard to inspection of ballot papers enunciated by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act to an election petition dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that before an authority hearing the election petition under the said Act can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exit : (1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the respondent is bing questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and (2) the authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of any specification with regard to the ground on which the election of the respondent is being questioned together with summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground, it is not open to the authority dealing with an application under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, either to look in to or direct inspection of ballot papers merely on the ground that it feels that it would be in the interest of justice to look in to or permit inspection of the ballot papers. In the context, such satisfaction has necessarily to be based on specific averments made in and the materials indicated in the election petition which could, prima facie, satisfy the authority about the existence of the ground on which the election is sought to be questioned” 14. Now before applying the legal position stated herein before it is necessary to examine the allegations contained in the election petition in respect of illegal or improper counting of votes by returning officer. Annexure-1 of the writ petition is a copy of election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 before prescribed authority under Section 12 (c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Annexure-1 of the writ petition is a copy of election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 before prescribed authority under Section 12 (c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The allegations in respect of illegalities in counting of votes are made in paras 17 to 22 of the said election petition are as under : "17- ;g fd erx.kuk ds fnu Hkh ;kph dks dksbZ erx.kuk ds laca/k es lwpuk ugh nh x;h mUgksusa tc tkdj erx.kuk dk le; iwNk rks erx.kuk dk le; lqcg 10 cts crk;k x;kA tcfd erx.kuk kke 7 cts tkdj gh kq: dh x;hA 18- ;g fd erx.kuk LFky ij ;kph ,oe mlds vfHkdrkZvksa dks Vscy uEcj 11 ij erx.kuk djkus dk ikl tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq erx.kuk dsUnz ij erksa dh x.kuk vpkud Vsfcy la[;k 11 ls Vsfcy la[;k 8 ij f[kldk nh x;hA ftleas izfroknh uEcj 8 dk fo’ks"k ;ksxnku jgk gSA bl ij gh izfroknh la[;k 1 dk fjrsnkj jktsUnz uke deZpkjh erx.kuk ds fy, rSukr FkkA tks fd ikl ds xzke fpVgSjk dk jgus okyk gSA vkSj izfroknh la[;k ,d dk fjrsa es le/kh yxrk gSA 19- ;g fd izfroknh la[;k 1 dk lxk le/kh Hkh mDr ljdkjh deZpkjh ds lkFk vukfèkÑr :i ls ernku LFky ij mifLFkr FkkA tcfd lkjh O;oLFkk dk lqPkk: :i ls pykus ds fy, ernku LFky dks iwjh rjg ls lhy fd;s tkus dk ukVd iz’kklu us fd;k FkkA fdUrq mijksDr O;fDr }kjk bl ukVd dh iksy [kksy nh x;hA ftlus Hkhrj jgdj erx.kuk dks iwjh rjg izHkkfor fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ ds gd esa vkrs gq, pquko ifj.kke dks mlds f[kykQ djk fn;kA 20- ;g fd mijksDr lkjh izfdz;k nks"kiw.kZ vkSj xSj dkuwuh dj xqy fd;k x;k FkkA ,slk blfy, fd;k tk jgk Fkk fd rkfd izfroknh uEcj 1 dks vuqfpr ykkHk nsdj mls fot;h ?kksf"kr fd;k tk ldsA 21- ;g fd erx.kuk ds le; ftu erksa dks voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fujLr fd;k x;k muds fo"k; esa Hkh ?kksj vfu;ferrk,a cjrh x;h vkSj mlds ihNs fdlh Hkh l{ke izkfèkdkjh us fujLrhdj.k dk dkj.k vafdr ugh fd;k vkSj uk gh mu ij vius gLrk{kj vafdr fd;sA bl izdkj erx.kuksa es fujLr fd;s tkus okys erksa ds lacaèk es fn;s x;s fu;eksa dk ?kksj mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA 22- ;g fd erx.kuk ds le; tc fctyh Hkkx djds ;kph dh erx.kuk est dks va/ksjk fd;k tkrk rHkh mldh oksVksa dks fujLr dj nwljh rjQ j[k fn;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj ;kph ds erksa dks "kM+;a= ds rgr vf/kd la[;k esa fujLr fd;k x;k gSA bl lc ds mijkUr Hkh ;kph dks tc izfroknh uEcj 1 o mlds lkFk lkft’k fd;s gq, erx.kuk deZpkfj;ksa o vf/kdkfj;ksa us mls fot;h gksrs ns[kk rks mlds vfèkd ikap erksa dks fxurh djds 20 de erksa es ifjofrZr dj fn;k ftl ij ;kph ds }kjk iquZx.kuk dh ekax djrs gq, mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ls vius f[kykQ gq, vU;k; dh xqgkj yxk;h x;hA fdUrq izkFkhZ@;kph dh lkjh ckrs vulquh dj nh x;h vkSj izfroknh uEcj 1 dks fct;h ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;kA** 15. From a careful reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of election petition filed by the respondent No. 2 it is clear that initially Table No. 11 was fixed for counting of votes of election in question at 10 A.M. on 28.8.2005 but later on counting place was shifted from the aforesaid table to Table No. 8 and counting was held at 7.00 P.M. on that day. At Table No. 8 Sri Rajendra Prasad, a close relative of returned candidate, was deputed as counting employee and shifting was done at his instance, obviously with the collusion of higher officer to benefit the returned candidate in the said election. These facts have been specifically stated in para 17, 18, and 19 of the election petition. In para 20 of the election petition, it is stated that during the course of counting of votes light was cut at 5 - 6 occasions at Table No. 8, whereas on other Table’s light was made continuously available and aforesaid situation was created with ulterior motive for doing manipulations in ballot papers. In para 21 it is stated that the ballot papers in respect of votes which were declared invalid were not signed by authorised employee/officer who were engaged in counting of votes. In para 22 of the election petition it is specifically stated that several valid votes of election petitioner were wrongly rejected holding them as invalid, and invalid votes of returned candidate were accepted as valid votes. It is also stated that by taking advantage of darkness at counting table at several occasions, the valid votes of the election petitioner were made invalid and also counted in the votes of returned candidates, as a result of which the election petitioner who was to win the election by margin of 5 votes has been declared defeated by margin of 20 votes. 16. 16. Although written statement was filed by the petitioner in the said election petition who is returned candidate in the said election which is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition but the material facts in respect of improper counting of votes and manipulations in ballot papers stated in paras 17 to 22 of the election petition have not been specifically denied by him, as such in view of provisions of Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C. the aforesaid facts could be taken to be admitted by the petitioner who is respondent No. 1 (defendant) in the said election petition. Besides this, the counting agents of the election petitioner and other candidates of said election, who were present in counting of votes have also filed their affidavits before the Prescribed authority supporting the aforesaid version of election petitioner/respondent No. 2, in respect of illegalities committed while counting of votes, therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the election petition contains adequate statements of all the material facts or summary of circumstances on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality while counting of votes are founded. Besides, the affidavits filed in support of said allegations have also prima facie established that there has been illegality while counting of votes and in order to decide the dispute raised in the election petition inasmuch as to do complete justice between the parties it was imperatively necessary to direct recounting of votes. 17. It is no doubt true that while directing for recount of votes, the Prescribed authority/election tribunal did not record its prima facie satisfaction in the manner stated herein before but in my opinion since there was sufficient material before the tribunal to arrive at a prima facie opinion regarding irregularity or illegality while counting of votes, therefore, direction for recounting in absence of such positive finding by the election tribunal, cannot be faulted with. In my opinion, it is not a case where the election tribunal has directed recounting of votes without any specific allegation with material particulars or on vague and frivolous and indefinite allegations in respect of illegality or irregularity committed while counting of votes and in absence of materials in support thereof, rather it is a case where while directing for recounting of votes the election tribunal did not record prima facie satisfaction expected from it. Even if the order passed by election tribunal does not technically conform the norms of decision expected from the tribunal, even then in given facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, since conditions requisite for such direction were existing, therefore, the decision taken by the election tribunal cannot be said to be without any factual and legal foundation, as such cannot be faulted with. 18. It is well settled that requirement of maintaining secrecy of the ballot papers is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations as held in several decisions referred hereinbefore but at the same time as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Gill’s case (supra) if secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair election is used to suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to defend a crime viz. forgery of ballot papers, this principle of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair election. The principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair election viz. purity of election. They can co-exist but where one is used to destroy the other, the first one must yield to the principle of the purity of election in larger public interest. 19. Apart from it, this Court cannot lose sight of rampant corruption prevalent in public life and public administration. Developing trend of commercialization and criminalization of politics now remained no longer secret, rather has become common phenomenon of present politics. Now a days money and muscle are playing dominant role in election right from lower level of Village-Panchayat upto higher level of Parliamentary election. It would be needless to say that majority of democratic institutions are now captured by monied men and persons coming from criminal background through our present democratic process. Commercialization and criminalization of politics have posed imminent danger and new challenge to our Parliamentary democracy. Such developing trend in politics has not merely polluted the political atmosphere and scenario of the country but due to which survival of democracy has been put in peril and now it is at stake. Commercialization and criminalization of politics have posed imminent danger and new challenge to our Parliamentary democracy. Such developing trend in politics has not merely polluted the political atmosphere and scenario of the country but due to which survival of democracy has been put in peril and now it is at stake. In such situation the Courts or tribunal trying the election dispute has to be much more careful and cautious about the maintaining of purity of election process through free and fair election. And where the complaints are made in the election petition with material particulars in respect of irregularity or illegality in counting of votes including manipulations or fraud played in counting of votes through tampering of ballot papers etc. and not on vague, frivolous and indefinite allegations, the Courts or tribunal trying the election petition, should normally allow the prayer of recounting of votes to maintain purity in the election process which is basic postulate of our Parliamentary democracy. In instant case, in my opinion, this principle of law has full application. If the tampering in ballot papers has been done at the instance of a close relative of returned candidate, who was member of counting party and illegalities have been committed by the said counting party while counting of votes, in such situation, the principle of secrecy of ballot papers will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair election, so that purity in election process would be ensured. Therefore, on this count also, direction for recount of votes cannot be faulted with. 20. Further on account of direction for recounting of votes, in case the election of returned candidate is set aside, in such situation it would not be necessary for the election tribunal to decide all the disputed questions raised in the election petition by trying entire election petition and time of election tribunal would also be saved. In this view of the matter also and in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the direction election tribunal for recounting of votes, as in my opinion it would effectuate complete justice between the parties. 21. In this view of the matter also and in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the direction election tribunal for recounting of votes, as in my opinion it would effectuate complete justice between the parties. 21. Before parting with the case it is significant to point out that the election in question was held in June 2005, the term of office of Village Pradhan is five years, out of which in spite of sincere efforts of election petitioner to get the election petition expeditiously decided, the same could not be decided and a period of more than four years has passed by now and only six months are left for fresh election. Almost substantial period of office of Village Pradhan has lost by now but the election petition could not be decided due to intervening litigations at the instance of returned candidate. Therefore, the election tribunal/Prescribed authority is directed to complete recounting of votes within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it. On recounting of votes, if the election of returned candidate is set aside, the election petition shall be disposed of finally by that time. 22. With the aforesaid observation and direction writ petition stands dismissed. ————