JUDGMENT : 1. Taken on board. This special leave petition is directed against the interim order dated 23.9.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari v. Arikala Narsa Reddy, (Election Petition No. 2 of 2009, order dated 23.9.2011 (A.P.)), directing the Registrar (Judicial) to re-count All the ballot Papers (emphasis supplied), which had been cast in connection with the election to the Legislative Council from 18, Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency. 2. Initially, after the votes were counted, both the petitioner as well as Respondent 1 were found to have obtained an equal number of votes resulting in a tie. This led Arikala Narsa Reddy, the petitioner herein, to ask for a re-count of the votes from the Returning Officer. On a re-count by the Returning Officer, two votes, which had been cast in favour of Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari, Respondent 1, were declared to be invalid and as a result, the petition, the petitioner, Arikala Narsa Reddy, was declared elected to the Legislative council by a margin of one vote. Respondent 1, thereafter, filed Election Petition No. 2 of 2009, questioning the finding of the Returning officer with regard to the two votes as well as one other vote which had been declared invalid in the first count and which declaration was never questioned earlier by Respondent 1. 3. While considering the matter at an interim stage, the High Court by the impugned order dated 23.9.2011, directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, to "re-count ALL the ballot papers" (emphasis supplied) in the presence of the parties and their counsel. Such re-counting was directed to be done as per the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations, instructions, instructions and guidelines issued by the Election Commission. The report was also directed to be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover within one month from the date of the order, as to the result of the re-count. 4. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner herein Arikala Narsa Reddy, who had been declared elected, has filed the present special leave petition. 5. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the direction given to count all the ballot papers becomes meaningless unless the validity of the votes which had been declared invalid, is first taken into consideration. Mr. 5. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the direction given to count all the ballot papers becomes meaningless unless the validity of the votes which had been declared invalid, is first taken into consideration. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1, also agrees that firstly, the validity of the three ballot papers has to be consideration and decided, before a general re-count is directed. 6. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the special leave petition by setting aside the interim order passed by the High Court on 23.9.2011, and directing the High Court to first of all determine the question relating to the validity of the ballots, if required. 7. All contentions in the special leave petition are left open.