JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order, dated 23.12.2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, Assam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Tribunal'), in Misc. (Election) Case No. 78/2008, the W.T. Message, dated 02.02.2009, issued by the Under Secretary, Assam State Election Commission, Dispur, Guwahati and the Notification, dated 03.02.2009, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar have been challenged. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned District Judge, acting as the Election Tribunal, on the basis of the order, dated 10.11.2008, passed in Misc. (Election) Case No. 78/2008, directing re-counting of the ballot papers, declared the Respondent No. 1, to be duly elected as the member of No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency, in the election held on 31.12.2007. Pursuant to the said judgment and order, the Deputy Commissioner and the Returning Officer, Sivasagar, by Notification, dated 03.02.2009, on the basis of the approval received vide W.T. message dated 02.02.2009, received from the State Election Commissioner, issued a Notification, declaring the Respondent No. 1, to be elected returned from the No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency. 2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Md. Aslam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The facts, giving rise to this writ petition, may be, briefly summarised, as follows: The State Election Commission, Assam, on 07.11.2007, issued notification, for holding the Panchayat Election in the State of Assam in three phases. Pursuant to the said notification, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, issued notification, inviting nomination papers for holding Panchayat Election in the District of Sivasagar. The Petitioner, the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, contested the said election for the No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency. In the said election, held on 31.12.2007, the Petitioner obtained 877 votes and the Respondent No. 1 obtained 872 votes. Accordingly, as the Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes, she was declared and elected in respect of No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency. 4. Being dissatisfied with the election result, the Respondent No. 1, as the election Petitioner, filed an Election Petition under Section 129(B) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Accordingly, as the Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes, she was declared and elected in respect of No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency. 4. Being dissatisfied with the election result, the Respondent No. 1, as the election Petitioner, filed an Election Petition under Section 129(B) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The election of the Petitioner was challenged on the following grounds: (i) The election made by the authorized persons/returning officer was erroneous in law as well as in facts; (ii) There was a discrepancy with regard to the total number of votes obtained by the candidates, rejected votes and the total number of votes found in the ballot boxes; (iii) Numbers of ballot papers were not stamped properly as per the procedure of the Election Commission and the Rules framed there under; (iv) The Returning Officer failed to take notes of the thumb impression made by the voters; (v) The election was not properly conducted and that there was gross irregularities. In the said election petition, it was further contended that though counting was conducted in 10 tables, the election Petitioner was not allowed to engage counting agents, whereas the writ Petitioner was permitted to engage agents for each of the tables and that even after re-counting, in respect of table No. 7, the ballot papers found with thumb impression were not rejected. By the said election petition, prayer was made to recall the ballot boxes, open the same and set aside the election. 5. The election petition was contested by the present Petitioner. It was pleaded that, the election petition was barred by law of limitation. Denying the allegations made in the election petition, the Petitioner, who contested the election petition, as Respondent No. 3, contended that the election Petitioner, was liable to prove the allegations made in the election petition by adducing evidence and that this Petitioner was legally declared elected in the said election. 6. On the basis of the said election petition by order, dated 10.11.2008, the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, Assam, passed an order for recounting held ballot papers on 13.12.2008. 6. On the basis of the said election petition by order, dated 10.11.2008, the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, Assam, passed an order for recounting held ballot papers on 13.12.2008. Accordingly, recounting was made on 13.12.2008, in presence of both the parties and it was found, after recounting, that the election Petitioner secured 876 votes instead of 872 votes, as declared earlier and the writ Petitioner, who was earlier declared as elected candidate, secured 873 votes instead of 877 votes as declared earlier. Six ballot papers were declared to be rejected. Accordingly, a memorandum of the counting of ballot papers was prepared and the same was signed by the writ Petitioner and the election Petitioner aforesaid. By his order, dated 13.12.2008, the learned District Judge, observed that the learned Counsels for both the parties fairly submitted that they would not like to submit written objection against the memo of scrutiny and recounting of the cast ballot papers and that the matter may be treated as heard. Accordingly, arguments, on behalf of both the parties, were heard and the case was fixed on 23.12.2008 for judgment. By his judgment and order, dated 23.12.2008, the learned District Judge, declared the election Petitioner i.e. the present Respondent No. 1, to be elected as a member of No. 7 Sukhanpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat constituency under No. 2 Palengi Zilla Parishad, in the election held on 31.12.2007. It was also declared that the writ Petitioner, who was Respondent No. 3 in the election petition, was wrongly/illegally declared, and recorded in the final result sheet, as elected by the Returning Officer. Sivasagar. 7. Consequent upon the said declaration, by the impugned W.T. Message, dated 02.02.2009, the Under Secretary, Assam State Election Commission, Dispur, Guwahati, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, Assam, to issue certificate, of return to the election Petitioner, by cancelling the certificate already issued in favour of the writ Petitioner. Pursuant to the said instruction, the Deputy Commissioner & Returning Officer, Sivasagar, by his notification, dated 03.02.2009, cancelled the certificate of return, issued to the writ Petitioner and requested the election Petitioner to collect the certificate of return from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and take oath of office as per Rule. 8. Pursuant to the said instruction, the Deputy Commissioner & Returning Officer, Sivasagar, by his notification, dated 03.02.2009, cancelled the certificate of return, issued to the writ Petitioner and requested the election Petitioner to collect the certificate of return from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and take oath of office as per Rule. 8. Being aggrieved, the writ Petitioner, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking appropriate writ, for setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment and order, dated 23.12.2008, passed by the learned Panchayat Election Tribunal, Sivasagar, in Misc. (Election) Case No. 78/2008, the W.T. Message, dated 02.02.2009 and the notification, dated 03.02.2009, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. 9. The writ Petitioner, has pleaded that the election Petitioner, in her election petition, failed to state the material facts and the particulars challenging the election aforesaid. According to the writ Petitioner, the allegations made in the election petition were vague and bald statements, which were devoid of any materials on record. It is also pleaded that, the details of the allegation, irregularities alleged to have been committed in the counting of the ballot papers, were not disclosed by the election Petitioner in her election petition and also failed to adduce any evidence in support of the allegations made in this election petition. It is also contended that the election petition was devoid of adequate statement of material facts, on which the election Petitioner relied in support of her case and that the learned tribunal failed to, prima facie, satisfy itself in order to pass an order for inspection of the ballot papers. It is also contended, that the order, dated 10.11.2008, passed by the learned Tribunal, directing recounting of the ballot papers, did not disclose anything to show that there was sufficient material for, prima facie, satisfaction of the learned Tribunal in arriving at a decision for ordering recounting of the ballot papers. It is further contended, that the order, dated 10.11.2008, passed by the learned Tribunal indicates that the order for recounting was passed merely on the desire of the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the election petition and that there is no finding, that the election Petitioner could, prima facie, establish a case for recounting of the ballot papers. It is further contended, that the order, dated 10.11.2008, passed by the learned Tribunal indicates that the order for recounting was passed merely on the desire of the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the election petition and that there is no finding, that the election Petitioner could, prima facie, establish a case for recounting of the ballot papers. Regarding the observation made by the learned District Judge, in his order, dated 13.12.2008, that the learned Counsel for both the sides have agreed not to submit any written objection against the Memorandum of scrutiny and recounting of the ballot papers, the writ Petitioner, contended that she did not get reasonable opportunity to place her objection as to the recounting of the ballot papers. It is also contended, that the learned Tribunal, committed error by confining the recounting only to the votes obtained by the writ Petitioner and the election Petitioner. It is also stated, in the writ petition, that though initially the total vote cast, in favour of the writ Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 was 1747, i.e. 877 in favour of the writ Petitioner and 872 in favour of the election Petitioner, after recounting, though six ballot papers were rejected, the total figure remained 1749 i.e. 873 in favour of the writ Petitioner and 876 in favour of the election Petitioner and that there is no finding as to whether those rejected six ballot papers were found in excess. It is also contended on behalf of the writ Petitioner that the learned Tribunal committed error by rejecting the ballot papers on the ground that one mark was found in the shaded area and that the marks were not made by the instrument, supplied for casting votes, though it was likely that due to repeated use of the said instrument, it might have given the impression of a thumb impression. 10. The Respondent No. 1, contested the writ petition, by filing affidavit-in-opposition. Denying the allegations made by the writ Petitioner, the contesting Respondent, in her affidavit-in-opposition, stated that the writ Petitioner, as Respondent No. 1, failed to challenge the election petition on any other ground except on the ground of limitation and that the election Petitioner as well as her learned Counsel was present at the time of recounting and that both of them had signed the Memorandum of counting, prepared on 13.11.2008. The Respondent No. 1, further stated that, she, in her election petition, specifically mentioned the discrepancies with regard to total number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes and also alleged that though there were 10 tables for counting of votes, the agents of the election Petitioner were not allowed to observe the counting in those tables in spite of raising objection and that due to refusal to allow the presence of agents in all the 10 tables, the election Petitioner could not brought all other details of irregularities, committed by the officials at the behest of the writ Petitioner, who was the Congress (I) candidate. It is also contended, by the Respondent No. 1 that, in pursuant to the order, dated 10.11.2008, recounting was held and that the writ Petitioner participated in the said recounting without any objection. The Respondent No. 1, in her affidavit-in-opposition, further contended that the decision of the learned Tribunal, was based on the pleadings of the parties and the finding of the recounting. It is also contended that, in the recounting, it was found that the election Petitioner secured highest number of votes i.e. 876 votes against 873 votes obtained by the writ Petitioner and as such the learned Tribunal, committed no error by declaring the election Petitioner as the elected candidate. 11. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner, submitted that the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, passed the order, dated 10.11.2008, thereby directing recounting of the votes without adequate statement and particulars of all materials facts regarding irregularity or illegality alleged to be found in the counting of the votes and without any evidence, in support of the allegations made in the election petition. The learned senior counsel, further submitted that the learned Election Tribunal, ought to have, prima facie, satisfied itself that in order to decide the dispute and do injustice between the parties it was necessary to go for recounting. The learned senior counsel, submitted that the order, dated 10.11.2008, was passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, merely at the desire of the election Petitioner/i.e. the present Respondent No. 1, without looking into the existence of a prima facie case in favour of recounting. The learned senior counsel, submitted that the order, dated 10.11.2008, was passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, merely at the desire of the election Petitioner/i.e. the present Respondent No. 1, without looking into the existence of a prima facie case in favour of recounting. It is also submitted, that the learned Tribunal, by ordering recounting, without any materials and satisfactory evidence, failed to appreciate the importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers and thereby committed gross error and illegality. It is further submitted that, as the order for recounting itself was bad in the eye of law, the finding arrived at after such recounting, followed by the impugned judgment and order, can't stand the test of law. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Petitioner, in her petition filed before the Tribunal while asking for setting aside of the election did not make any prayer for declaring her to be the elected candidate and no relief having been prayed for the learned Tribunal committed error by declaring her elected. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel, has relied on the following decisions: (1) P.K.K. Shamsudden v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 526 . (2) P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 742 . (3) Udey Chand v. Surat Singh and Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 170 . (4) V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 81 . (5) M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 341 . (6) Maahender Pratap v. Krishan Pal and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 390 . (7) Laxmi Kant Bajpai v. Haji Yaqoob and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 81. 12. In reply to the said argument, advanced on behalf of the writ Petitioner, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, has submitted that, the allegations made in the election petition were sufficient for ordering recounting and that the writ Petitioner, who was the Respondent No. 3 in the said election petition, failed to contest the election petition, and as such, the learned District Judge, proceeded to dispose of the matter ex parte. Supporting the impugned orders, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, submitted that the learned Tribunal, committed no error by ordering recounting and that from the recounting it was revealed that, in fact, the election Petitioner i.e. the Respondent No. 1, had secured highest number of votes and as such she was rightly declared as the elected candidate. It is also submitted that, though the election Petitioner, in her election petition, did not make any prayer for declaring her as elected, the learned Tribunal committed no error by declaring her as elected candidate on the basis of the result of the recounting and the facts established. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel, has placed reliance on the decision held in the case of Rupadhar Pujari v. Gangadhar Bhatra (2004) 7 SCC 654 . 13. In the case of Rupadhar Pujari v. Gangadhar Bhatra, (2004) 7 SCC 654 , the Supreme Court observed that procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve as handmaid of justice, make them workable and advance the ends of justice. Technical objections, which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat and deny substantial and effective justice, should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of the law inevitably necessitates it. The Supreme Court further observed as: Ordinarily, a Plaintiff or Petitioner should not be denied such relief to which he is found entitled on the facts established, simply, because the relief clause was not very happily worded. In view of the above principle laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the election Petitioner. Therefore, granting of the relief which was not mentioned in election petition, cannot be the sole ground to set aside the impugned judgment and order. 14. In view of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel, for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, before entering into the merit of the issue raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to get enlightened and refreshed by the principles laid down in the Election Law. 15. In the case of P.K.K. Shamsudden (supra), an election was held on 23.2.86 and the Respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 649 votes for the President of the Keelpaguthi Panchayat, Kulithalal Talum Tamil Nadu. 15. In the case of P.K.K. Shamsudden (supra), an election was held on 23.2.86 and the Respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 649 votes for the President of the Keelpaguthi Panchayat, Kulithalal Talum Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 who were the other contestants were declared to have only 556 votes and 8 votes respectively. Besides the votes secured by the contestants, 55 votes were declared to be invalid votes. Two days after the results were declared i.e. on 27.2.86, the Petitioner sent telegram and registered notice-alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. Thereafter, he filed an election petition under Section 178 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act before the election tribunal (District Munsiff), for setting aside the election of the Respondent No. 1 as President of Keelpaguthi Panchayat. He alleged in the petition, that the Returning Officer had wrongly treated some valid votes cast in favour as invalid votes and a certain number of invalid votes as votes validly cast in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and that the Returning Officer had failed to permit him and his agents to have scrutinised the ballot papers at the time of counting. He, therefore, sought reliefs of setting aside the election of the Respondent No. 1, ordering of recount of votes and a declaration that he had been duly elected. The Respondent No. 1 opposed the election petition and filed a counter statement denying all the allegations made in the election petition. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of all the candidates and the Assistant Returning Officer came to the conclusion that "the Petitioner is entitled to ask for recount of votes" and ordered recounting and called for the ballot papers. The Tribunal without any discussion whatever upon the merits and demerits of the evidence of the parties gave a cryptic finding as follows: "I accept the evidence given by the Petitioner that he (Returning Officer) has sided the first Respondent in the election." Accordingly, recounting was ordered. In the recounting of votes though no difference was found in the number of votes secured by the Petitioner (viz. 556 votes) but so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, he secured only 520 votes as against 649 votes originally held to have secured by him. The excess of 121 votes were found to be invalid. In the recounting of votes though no difference was found in the number of votes secured by the Petitioner (viz. 556 votes) but so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, he secured only 520 votes as against 649 votes originally held to have secured by him. The excess of 121 votes were found to be invalid. There was no difference of votes in respect of the third Respondent. All the three contestants accepted the correctness of the recounting of votes and signed a memo to that effect before the Tribunal. On the basis of the recounting, the Petitioner pressed for a declaration that he had been duly elected to the post of the President of the Panchayat. The Respondent No. 1 prayed for a direction for holding a fresh election. The Tribunal declined to order re-election and instead declared the Petitioner to have been duly elected because the recount clearly proved that the Petitioner secured 28 votes more than the Respondent No. 1. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Revision petition. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Revision holding that the Tribunal had erred in ordering recounting of votes when the Petitioner had not made out a prima facie case for an order of recount of votes. The High Court pointed out that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct and as such the secrecy of the ballot should not be violated by any Tribunal unless a prima facie case of a compulsive nature had been made out by the defeated candidates for the rule of secrecy being broken and the ballot papers being inspected and counted afresh. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the election result in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Against the said order of the High Court, the Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. In dismissing the said Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court discussed the principles of law laid down in the case of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh AIR 1966 SC 773 wherein it was observed as follows: An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh AIR 1966 SC 773 wherein it was observed as follows: An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not. In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored, and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. It may be that in some cases, the ends of justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider his objections about the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes tendered by voters at any given election; but in considering the requirements of justice, care must be taken to see that election Petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the returned candidate's election is void. 16. In the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai AIR 1964 SC 1249 , the Supreme Court set out the circumstances, when an order for inspection of ballot papers can be ordered, in the following way: An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (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; (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. 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 precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish case so require, be granted. 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 precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish case so 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. 17. Referring to the decisions made in the above cited cases, the Supreme Court observed- 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 hindsight 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 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 interests of justice, a Tribunal of 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. Factors urged before us by Mr. Padamanabhan such as that Respondent 1 had accepted the correctness of the recount, and that he had conceded his defeat and wanted a reelection to be held cannot constitute justifying materials in law for the initial order of recount of votes made by the Tribunal. 18. In the case of P.K.K. Samsudden (supra), it was canvassed on behalf of the Appellant i.e. the election Petitioner that it would be travesty of justice and opposed to all democratic canons to allow Respondent No. 1 to continue to hold the post of the President of the Panchayat, when the recount disclosed that he had secured 28 votes less than the Petitioner. In response to the said argument, their Lordships observed, "We are unable to sustain this contention because as we have stated, earlier, an order of recount of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes. 19. In the case of P.H. Pujar (supra), the Supreme Court observed- The re-count of the votes cannot be ordered in a casual manner. It cannot be ordered because the margin of defeat is meagre. For seeking re-count, proper foundation is to be laid in the pleadings by setting out material facts and later proving it by adducing requisite evidence. The re-count cannot be ordered on the ipse dixit of the election Petitioner. It can be ordered in rare cases where specific allegations are made and proved so as to do complete justice between the parties. 20. In the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram (2000) 8 SCC 355 , the Supreme Court observed- Re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegations in the pleading in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The Petitioner seeking re-count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations can it 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 and irregularity in counting. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations can it 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 and 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. 21. In the case of Udey Chand (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the decision made in the case of P.K.K. Samsudden (supra) wherein it was held: Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and re-count of votes is not to be derived from hindsight and by the result of the re-count of votes and that the justification for an order of re-count of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election Petitioner on the threshold before an order for re-count of votes is actually made. 22. In the case of Udey Chand (supra), re-poll for the post of Sarpanch of Gaon Panchayat, was held on 18.12.05. In the result declared the same evening, the Appellant was declared elected by a margin of four votes, having secured 881 votes as against 877 votes secured by Respondent No. 1 (election Petitioner in this appeal). The statutory Form 19 prepared by the Returning Officer was signed by the Appellant as well as the election Petitioner and the result was declared. Being dissatisfied with the election result, the election Petitioner filed an election petition. The statutory Form 19 prepared by the Returning Officer was signed by the Appellant as well as the election Petitioner and the result was declared. Being dissatisfied with the election result, the election Petitioner filed an election petition. The election of the Appellant was challenged on several grounds (all in Para 3 of the petition in the narrative form) viz: (i) on completion of election and counting of votes, the election Petitioner was found to have secured 877 votes as against 871 votes cast in favour of the Appellant; (ii) the Returning Officer declared the election Petitioner as elected to the post of Sarpanch; he got Form 19 signed from him and after the election Petitioner had left for his residence to celebrate his victory, the Returning Officer, in connivance with the Appellant and under political pressure, wrongly recorded the number of votes secured by each of them and declared the Appellant as elected for the said post; and (iii) on account of political pressure and ill will, the Returning Officer wrongly cancelled a number of votes cast in favour of the election Petitioner and, therefore, "re-counting" of votes was illegal. The election petition was contested alleging that a case of recounting was not made out and that the allegations were frivolous and abuse of process. The record revealed that neither were issues framed nor was any affidavit by way of evidence filed or oral evidence in support of the respective pleas was adduced. Upon hearing oral submissions and relying on a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal: AIR 2000 P&H 1 , the Tribunal allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant took the matter to the High Court by preferring a revision petition. The High Court dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal set aside the order passed by the election Tribunal directing re-counting of the votes. The Supreme Court observed- Before adverting to the merits of the issue raised by the parties with reference to the statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re-count of the ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting are made out. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several case. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements viz: (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary. 23. In the case of V.S. Achuthanandan (supra), the Supreme Court observed- Once a re-count is validly ordered the statistics revealed by the re-count shall be available to be used for deciding the election dispute. However, if the validity of an order passed by the High Court permitting inspection of ballot papers and directing a re-count is brought in issue before the Supreme Court, the facts revealed by re-count cannot be relied upon by the election Petitioner to support the prayer and sustain the order for re-count if the pleadings and material available on record anterior to actual re-count did not justify grant of the prayer for inspection and re-count. In the above referred case, the Supreme Court has further observed that without establishing a prima facie case for recounting on the basis of material particulars, a Petitioner cannot be allowed to indulge in a roving enquiry and try to fish out materials in the hope that the recount, if allowed, may probably twist the fate. As observed by the Supreme Court, in the case of Achuthanandan (supra), there should be materials enabling the Court to record a satisfaction of prima facie case having been made out for grant of the prayer. The Court must come to the conclusion that it was necessary and imperative to grant the prayer for inspection to do full justice between the parties so as to completely and effectually adjudicate upon the dispute. The Court must come to the conclusion that it was necessary and imperative to grant the prayer for inspection to do full justice between the parties so as to completely and effectually adjudicate upon the dispute. 24. In the case of M. Chinnasamy (supra), the Supreme Court referring to the case of P.K.K. Samsudden (supra) observed- Even if on re-count it was found that the returned candidate had not secured majority of the vote, the result could not have been disturbed unless prima facie case of high degree of probability existed for re-count of votes. 25. In the case of Mahinder Pratap (supra), the Supreme Court observed that contents of election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the Appellant relies. 26. In the case of Laxmi Kant Bajpai (supra), the Supreme Court observed that in absence of insufficient cause of action, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. In view of the above principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, an election Petitioner must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts, which he wants to rely upon during the trial and the petition must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action. It has also been settled that the Tribunal ordering recounting of the ballots must come to a definite finding, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, that there is sufficient evidence in support of the allegations made by the election Petitioner and he must come to prima facie satisfaction that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effective justice an order for recounting of the ballot papers is required to be made. The jurisdiction in favour of an order passed for examination of ballot papers and recounting of votes is not to be derived from the result of the recounting of the votes. Rather, the justification for an order of recounting of the ballot papers must be based on the materials supplied by an election Petitioner in favour of an order for recounting of votes. The prime object of seeking existence of a prima facie case is to preserve the secrecy of the ballot and such secrecy cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is a prima facie genuine need for it. 28. The prime object of seeking existence of a prima facie case is to preserve the secrecy of the ballot and such secrecy cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is a prima facie genuine need for it. 28. In view of the above if a prima facie case, in favour of recounting, is not made out from the materials placed before the Tribunal and at the same time if the order for such recounting is not based on the basis of findings of a prima facie case, such order for recounting cannot stand the test of law and consequently, the subsequent result from such recounting cannot be held to be valid. 29. In the light of the above, it is found to be settled law that a Tribunal directing recounting must come to a positive finding as to the existence of prima facie case, requiring recounting and unless a prima facie case is made out for scrutiny and recounting of ballot papers no order for recounting can be allowed. The result of recounting, held on the basis of such order, which is passed without any finding regarding existence of prima facie case cannot reverse the initial result of the election. 30. In the present case, the election Petitioner challenged the election on the following grounds: (i) That there appears discrepancies in the total number of votes obtained by the candidate plus rejected votes with the total number of ballot found in the boxes. (ii) That the number of ballot papers were not stamped properly as per procedure of the election commission and rules and as such election results made by the Respondents are not tenable and liable to be set aside. (iii) For that the returning officer ought to have taken the serious note with regard to thumb impression put by the voters in favour of their candidate. (iv) That the election has not been properly conducted resulting gross irregularities. 31. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the said allegation, without any evidence on record, passed the following order: 10.11.2008 - Petitioner filed advocate hazira. Respondent No. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned GP. Respondent No. 3 is absent without steps. Hence, the case shall proceed exparte against the Respondent No. 3. The case has already proceeded exparte against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Heard the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 and 2 are represented by the learned GP. Respondent No. 3 is absent without steps. Hence, the case shall proceed exparte against the Respondent No. 3. The case has already proceeded exparte against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Heard the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that with a view to settle the instant election case, it is desirable to hold the counting of the cast ballot papers. In view of the above and on consideration of the facts of the case, it is hereby directed that the counting of the cast ballot papers shall be counted in presence of the parties of both sides. Fixed 13.12.2008 for counting of ballot papers. Issue notice to the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 informing the date and time of the proposed counting of ballot papers. The notices shall be served by both registered A/D post and in usual manner. Steps be taken within three days. 13.12.2008 - Learned Counsels for both sides are present. Scrutiny and recounting of cast-valid ballot papers held in my Court chamber. The memo of scrutiny and recounting of cast valid ballot papers, prepared and signed by all the parties, present to the proceeding. Learned Counsels for both sides have fairly submitted that they would not like to submit written objection against the memo of scrutiny and recounting of the cast ballot papers and the matter may be treated as 'heard' Arguments of both the sides heard. 32. A careful scrutiny of the grounds taken for recounting reveals that no specific allegation regarding any illegality or irregularity alleged to have been committed during the election/counting could be proved by the election Petitioner. No evidence has also been adduced in support of the said allegations. The allegations are found to be bald statements without any material particulars with regard to facts as well as law. The order passed by the learned Tribunal was apparently made on the basis of the desire of the party seeking recounting. The order of recounting passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not reveal anything to show he had arrived at a prima facie case in favour of the recounting. In fact as can be noticed, there was no materials or evidence before the learned Judge. 33. The order of recounting passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not reveal anything to show he had arrived at a prima facie case in favour of the recounting. In fact as can be noticed, there was no materials or evidence before the learned Judge. 33. In the teeth of the above discussed principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order aforesaid passed by the learned Tribunal for recounting of the ballot papers cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, the subsequent recounting, and the result declared on the basis of such recounting and the impugned notifications issued by the authority concerned cannot be held to be valid and lawful. Because the very foundation of the impugned judgment and order can the notifications was the order directing recounting, which was not availed order in the eye of law. The result of the recount cannot justify the order of recounting, rather the validity of the order of recounting decides the fate of the result of such recounting. 34. In view of the above discussions and the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, as the order of recounting was passed on the basis of the submission that with a view to settle the case it was desirable to hold counting of ballots, that too without arriving at a definite finding regarding existence of prima facie case in favour of recounting and also without any evidence in support of the allegation, in my considered opinion, the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed error in the eye of law, by passing the order of recounting and proceeding with the recounting and thereby reversing the result of the election. 35. In view of what has been discussed above, I find sufficient merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and consequently, the impugned judgment and orders aforesaid as well as the W.T. message dated 02.02.2009 issued by the Under Secretary, Assam State Election Commissioner, Assam, the notification dated 03.02.2009 and the order of cancellation of the certificate of return issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar in respect of the Petitioner are set aside and quashed. Petition allowed