ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this intra-court appeal preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the legal validity of the order dated 13-5-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5290/08 is called in question. 2. The facts which are discernible from the material brought on record and the order of the learned Single Judge are that election was held for the post of Sarpanch of Village, Ghansa, District, Balaghat and in the said election the present appellant was declared elected on 27-1-2005. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said election under section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 [for brevity 'the 1993 Act'] alleging that the respondents No. 3 and 4 who were the Presiding Officers of the booth Nos. 196 and 195 respectively colluded with the elected candidate and under her influence, the Presiding Officer did not affix the format of the votes on the notice board. It was further alleged that the Prescribed Officer had not properly counted the votes and the decision with regard to acceptance and rejection of valid and invalid votes was perverse as a result of which the election petitioner lost the election by a small margin of 7 votes. It was put forth that at the time the result was announced, 19 votes were not found valid but on 27-1-2005, at the time of tabulation, it was declared that 17 votes were invalid. That itself showed that there had been manipulation in counting of votes. 3. As is evincible, the said election petition was dismissed by order dated 29-6-2005 and the said order of dismissal came to be assailed in W.P. No. 6987/05 which was allowed by this Court on 26-9-2006. This Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the election tribunal to decide the petition afresh in accordance with law. 4. After the remit of the election petition, the election tribunal reheard the matter and passed an order on 22-4-2008, Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition. While dealing with the concept of recounting, the Prescribed Authority ascribed the reasons, which on being translated into English, are as follows: Both the parties have been heard and statements of the witnesses and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties have been perused. While dealing with the concept of recounting, the Prescribed Authority ascribed the reasons, which on being translated into English, are as follows: Both the parties have been heard and statements of the witnesses and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties have been perused. This is evident that the petitioner made application seeking recounting of votes before the Returning Officer in Booth No. 196. Respondent witness has admitted this thing but he has stated that recounting was not made. Under such circumstances, there is clear direction for recounting to clear the doubts with all respect if application or demand is made to this effect. Presiding Officer of this polling booth has failed to follow that direction. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to clear his doubt. Objection of respondent No. 1 is rejected. The petition is allowed and demand for recount of votes at polling booth No. 196 is allowed. Order passed. 5. Questioning the soundness of the order passed by the election tribunal, was urged before the learned Single Judge that there was no cogent material to record a finding that there was manipulation in the counting and recounting of votes. In the absence of cogent evidence, the direction for recount of votes is totally unwarranted and unjustified. The learned Single Judge referred to the testimony of one witness, namely, Likhandra, but had deposed in support of recounting. The said testimony which is in Hindi, on being translated into English, reads as under: In Gram Panchayat, Ghansa, Panchayat election was held on 14-1-2005. 1 was present at Booth No. 196 as the polling agent on behalf of Lalamras candidate for Sarpanch. Presiding Officer did not check invalid votes properly and at the time of recounting despite being requested valid and invalid ballot papers were not shown. There were 7 invalid votes at booth No. 196 and 12 at booth No. 195. 17 votes were alleged to be invalid and counting slip was not given to me. I submitted application for recounting of votes. Presiding Officer did not give acknowledgment and recounting was not made. Copy of the application is enclosed with the petition. My affidavit P-1 is enclosed with the petition. Copy of the application P-2 made by me before the Presiding Officer 196 for recounting of votes is enclosed. I submitted application for recounting of votes. Presiding Officer did not give acknowledgment and recounting was not made. Copy of the application is enclosed with the petition. My affidavit P-1 is enclosed with the petition. Copy of the application P-2 made by me before the Presiding Officer 196 for recounting of votes is enclosed. There was power cut during the recounting of votes and bundle presented after restoring power supply were disarranged. I suspected that ballot papers were tampered. 6. The learned Single Judge after referring to the said testimony has observed that despite the exhaustive cross-examination nothing has been elicited and the witness has not retracted and, therefore, there was sufficient evidence to lead to the conclusion, as has been arrived at by the Presiding Officer and, thus, there is no perversity of approach in the finding. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge referred to Rule 21(1)(d)(iii) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 [for short 1995 Rules'] and also referred to the decisions rendered in Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others, (2004)6 SCC 331 ; M. Chinnasamy vs. K. C. Palanisamy and others, (2004)6 SCC 341 and Chadat Singh vs. Bahadur Ram & others, 2004(4) MPLJ (SC) 231 : (2004) 6 SCC 359 and gave the stamp of approval to the order of the tribunal. 7. We have heard Mr. Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Smita Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 8. Mr. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the pregnability of the order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fallen into error in his appreciation of the material brought on record to come to hold that there was sufficient and adequate material for recounting, though in law, recounting of votes should not be ordinarily directed inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show how the valid votes were kept out of consideration or invalid votes have been taken into consideration. It is contended by him that if the assertions in the election petition and the evidence on record are appreciated in proper perspective, it does not really make out a case for recount and, therefore, the affirmation given to the order of the election tribunal by the learned Single Jude is absolutely vulnerable. It is contended by him that if the assertions in the election petition and the evidence on record are appreciated in proper perspective, it does not really make out a case for recount and, therefore, the affirmation given to the order of the election tribunal by the learned Single Jude is absolutely vulnerable. It is further submitted by him that the prescribed authority has not ascribed any cogent and germane reason while directing recount of votes but solely directed so on the bedrock of the factum that the election petitioner had filed an application for recount under Rule 80 of the Rules but the same was dealt with by the returning officer. It is urged by him that the prescribed authority has fallen into grave error by not keeping in mind that a strong case has to be made out for recount as secrecy of votes has its own sacrosanctity in a democratic polity and further, unless acceptable cogent evidence is brought on record, a recount cannot be directed in a routine manner. It is put forth by him that the learned Single Judge has totally fallen into grave error in appreciating the conception of recount by affirming the order of the election tribunal when no case for recount was made out and further that the small margin of votes by which the candidate gets elected may be a factor for consideration of the prayer for recount of votes but that cannot be the sole ground or the governing factor. 9. Resisting the aforesaid submissions, Mrs. Smita Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, urged with vehemence that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely impeccable inasmuch as there has been proper scrutiny and analysis of the assertions made in the petition and reliance placed on Chandrika Prasad Yadav (supra) and M. Chinnasamy (supra). It is canvassed by her that the election petitioner had filed an application before the Returning Officer as expected of him under Rule 80 but the same was not adverted to and, therefore, the tribunal was justified in directing recounting of votes regard being had to the rejection of valid votes and the small margin by which the appellant has been elected. It is proponed by Mrs. It is proponed by Mrs. Verma that the election tribunal has not adverted to any roving and fishing enquiry but has appreciated the evidence in a seemly manner and, therefore, the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in not interfering with the order. To bolster her submission the learned counsel has commended us to the decision rendered in Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govind and others, AIR 1975 SC 2117 . 10. Before we advert to the factual matrix, we think it profitable to refer to certain citations in the field relating to recount of votes. 11. In Bhabhi (supra), a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court laid down the following principles: 15. 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 or 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. If all these circumstances enter into the mind of the Judge and he is satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled in a given case, the exercise of the discretion would undoubtedly be proper. 12. In Ku. If all these circumstances enter into the mind of the Judge and he is satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled in a given case, the exercise of the discretion would undoubtedly be proper. 12. In Ku. Shradha Devi vs. Krishna Chandra Pant and others, AIR 1982 SC 1569 , it has been held thus: 8. When a petition is for relief of scrutiny and recount on the allegation of miscount, the petitioner has to offer prima facie proof of errors in counting and if errors in counting are prima facie established a recount can be ordered. If the allegation is of improper rejection of valid votes which is covered by the broad spectrum of scrutiny and recount because of miscount, petitioner must furnish prima facie proof of such error. 13. In A. Younus Kanju vs. R.. S. Unni and others, AIR 1984 SC 960 the election petitioner failed to offer prima facie allegation and proof of errors in counting of ballot papers. In that context, Their Lordships held as under: The details necessary for obtaining a recount were not pleaded in the election petition nor was any cogent material placed before the Court which could bring the matter within the rule indicated by this Court to justify a direction for recount. 14. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen vs. K.A.M. Mappiflai Mohindeen and others, AIR 1989 SC 640 , it has been held as under: 13. 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. 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 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 re-count of votes being ordered-by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes. 15. In Satyanarain Dudhani vs. Aduay Kumar Singh, AIR 1993 SC 367 , it has been stated as follows: 10. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting, nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting. Ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered. 16. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered. 16. In Bahoran Lal vs. Ganesh Prasad and others, AIR 1999 MP 7 , it has been held as follows: The law is settled as to when and under what circumstance the recount can be ordered. In the case of Ku. Shradha Devi vs. Krishna Chandra Pant, AIR 1982 SC 1569 , the Supreme Court in para 8 observed that when a petition is for relief of scrutiny and recount on the allegation of miscount, the petitioner has to offer prima facie proof of errors in counting and if errors in counting are prima facie established a recount can be ordered. If the allegation is of improper rejection of valid votes which is covered by the broad spectrum of scrutiny and recount because of misconduct, petitioner must furnish prima facie proof of such error. If proof is furnished of some errors in respect of some ballot papers, scrutiny and recount cannot be limited to those ballot papers only. Reliance was placed on paragraph 940 of Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 15 and it was observed that: "This Court has in terms held that prima facie proof of error complained of must be given by the election petitioner and it must further be shown that the errors are of such magnitude that the result of election so far as it affects, the returned candidate is materially affected, then recount is directed. Reliance was also placed in the case of Khilari vs. The IVth Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra, AIR 1992 All 186 wherein the case of Beliram Bhalaik vs. Jai Behari Lal Khachi, AIR 1975 SC 283 was noted where the Supreme Court said: .....Although no castiron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down. Reliance was also placed in the case of Khilari vs. The IVth Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra, AIR 1992 All 186 wherein the case of Beliram Bhalaik vs. Jai Behari Lal Khachi, AIR 1975 SC 283 was noted where the Supreme Court said: .....Although no castiron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down. Yet from a beadroll of the decisions of the Supreme Court, two broad guidelines are discernible that the Court would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/ Tribunal 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. 17. In Vadivelu vs. Sundaram and others, (2000) 8 SCC 355 , a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, after referring to the decisions rendered in the cases of Sutyunurain Dudhuni (supra), Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs. Shri Krishna Behari, (1969) 2 SCC 433 ; D.P. Sharma vs. Commr. and Returning Officer, 1984 Supp SCC 157; P.K.K Shamsudeen (supra); Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249 ; S. Raghbir Singh Gill vs. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, 1980 Supp SCC 53; R. Narayan vs. S Semmalai, (1980)2SCC 537; and M.R. Gopalkrishnan vs. Thachady Prabhakaran, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 101, expressed the view as under: 16. The result of the analysis of the above cases would show that this Court has consistently taken the view that re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks re-count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or rejection of valid votes. If only the court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re-count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. If only the court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re-count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties. 18. In Chandrika Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2004)6 SCC 331 : AIR 2004 SC 2036 , the Apex Court has laid down the following norms: 20. It is well settled that an order of recounting of votes can be passed when the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) A prima facie case; (ii) Pleading of material facts stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) A roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made while directing recounting of votes, and (iv) An objection to the said effect has been taken recourse to. 21. The requirement of maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers also be kept in view before a recounting can be directed. Narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner by itself would not be sufficient for issuing a direction for recounting. 19. The aforesaid factual matrix is required to be scrutinized on the touchstone of the aforesaid enunciations of law. The vehement submission of Mrs. Verma is that it was obligatory on the part of the returning officer to entertain the application under Rule 80 and that having not been done, the prescribed authority has correctly directed for recount and the affirmation thereof by the learned single Judge is absolutely flawless. Filing of an application before the Returning Officer is all compliance of the procedure and the said compliance does not necessarily mean that the election petitioner earns the right to recount before the election tribunal. In fact, it is obligatory on the part of the election petitioner to prove that such an application was filed and not entertained and further which is more necessary is that there are prima facie irregularities in the counting. In fact, it is obligatory on the part of the election petitioner to prove that such an application was filed and not entertained and further which is more necessary is that there are prima facie irregularities in the counting. As has been held in catena of decisions, recount of votes can be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting and he who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or rejection of valid votes. Purity of election cannot be tarnished on routine allegations without any pleadings of material fact stating irregularities in counting of votes. There cannot be a roving and fishing inquiry. That apart, as has been held by Their Lordships, narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner by itself cannot be ground for direction for recounting. 20. As is evincible, in the case at hand, from the evidence that has been brought on record, there are vague allegations that there is irregularity with regard to counting of some of the votes and some invalid votes have been counted in favour of the elected candidate and the applications submitted under Rule 80 have been rejected. On a scrutiny of the evidence of the polling agent which has been translated by us, it is discernible that there were seven invalid votes in booth No. 196 and 12 votes at booth No. 195. It is alleged that there was power cut during the recounting of votes and bundle presented after restoring the power supply were disarranged and he suspected that ballot papers were tampered. The tribunal, as is evincible, recorded that the election petitioner made an application seeking recount but the recounting was not done. Because of the said facet, he has recorded a conclusion that the election petitioner is entitled to clear his doubt and, therefore direction for recounting has to be given. In our considered view, the appreciation of the evidence by the prescribed authority does not remotely meet the requisite parameters of recounting. The whole thing has been done in a most routine and most perfunctory manner. Secrecy of votes should not be tinkered in a lighter manner. Secrecy of votes has its own sacrosanctity. In our considered view, the appreciation of the evidence by the prescribed authority does not remotely meet the requisite parameters of recounting. The whole thing has been done in a most routine and most perfunctory manner. Secrecy of votes should not be tinkered in a lighter manner. Secrecy of votes has its own sacrosanctity. The evidence brought on record shows vagueness of allegations and does not specifically show how there is irregularity in counting of invalid votes and rejection of valid votes. The witness has stated that the ballot papers were tampered. The prescribed authority feels that the demand for recount is to be made to clear the doubt of the election petitioner. Suspicion is not a ground and clearance of doubt is not a reason. In our considered opinion, this is not a fit case where recount should have been directed to be done. We are disposed to think that the same has been directed solely on the ground that the election petitioner had filed an application under Rule 80 which was rejected and that alone is not a sufficient ground. As the learned single Judge has affirmed the order of the prescribed authority which is absolutely unsustainable, we are unable to concur with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. 21. Ex. consequenti, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and as a sequitur, the order passed by the prescribed authority directing recount of votes stands quashed. The prescribed authority shall proceed with the election petition as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.