Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Achroo Ladhaurda, Block Raya, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura, questioning the validity of order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority, directing recounting of the ballots in question. 2. Brief background of the case is that election to the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Achroo Ladhaurda, Block Raya, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura took place. In the said election, on the basis of valid votes secured by him, petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan. Said election of the petitioner had been subject matter of challenge by way of election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Prescribed Authority. Along with the election petition, stay application for restraining the petitioner from taking oath and not to take charge of the office of Pradhan as well as Application dated 01.11.2010 for summoning of ballots and recounting was also moved. Petitioner filed his objection to the aforesaid said applications contending therein that no such order could be passed. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority considered the application and has proceeded to pass order directing recounting of the ballots. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. 3. On presentation of writ petition, this Court on 21.01.2011 passed following order: “The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that without filing of the written statement and without any finding being recorded as to the necessity of a recount, the impugned order has been passed in public interest. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel submits that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever the order of recount could not have been passed that too even on the bald allegations made by the respondent no. 3 in the application, a copy whereof is annexure 7 to the writ petition. He submits that the order is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays that the matter be taken up on Monday to enable him to obtain instructions. Put up on Monday i.e. 24.01.2011.” 4. On the matter being taken up, Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate, has contended that requisite instructions have been obtained, and contesting respondent does not intend to file any counter affidavit, and writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of pleadings available on record. 5. Put up on Monday i.e. 24.01.2011.” 4. On the matter being taken up, Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate, has contended that requisite instructions have been obtained, and contesting respondent does not intend to file any counter affidavit, and writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of pleadings available on record. 5. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Pathik and Sri Tara Chandra Kaushik, Advocates, contended with vehemence that in the present case till date written statement has not been filed nor evidence has been led, in such a situation and in this background mere on bald statement of fact mentioned in the election petition on mere asking for, such an order of recounting cannot be passed, and such exercise of jurisdiction amounts to transgression and overstepping of jurisdiction and same is contrary to the parameters provided for in this direction. 6. Countering the said submissions, Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate, has contended that illegality, which has been committed, was writ apparent, and as Election Tribunal had full authority to pass order of recounting, and rightly said authority has been exercised in the present case, specially in the backdrop when there was difference of only one vote interse petitioner and the nearest rival contestant, the order of recounting is justified, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Before proceeding to consider the respective arguments advanced, the law with regard to recount, which has been subject matter of interpretation before Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and parameters settled therein are being looked into. 8. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others, reported in 1985 All. 7. Before proceeding to consider the respective arguments advanced, the law with regard to recount, which has been subject matter of interpretation before Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and parameters settled therein are being looked into. 8. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others, reported in 1985 All. C.J 196 has clearly taken the view that on vague and indefinite allegation recounting cannot be ordered and in paragraph 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 qua an election petition to be dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, view has been taken that 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 direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exist; which are as follows: “(1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the respondent is being 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 into or direct inspection of ballot papers merely on the ground that it feels that it would be in the interest of justice to look into 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.” 9. 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.” 9. In the case of N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai and others, AIR 1980 SC 206 , Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view that the allegations which have been made must not only be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence and the narrow margin of votes undoubtedly is an important factor to be considered, but the same would not by itself vitiate the counting or justify recounting. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted below: “26. Finally, the entire case law on the subject regarding the circumstances under which recount could be ordered was fully summarised and catelogued by this Court in the Case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind 1975 Supp SCR 202 to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party and which may be extracted thus :- “26. The Court would be justified in ordering a recount 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.” 10. Thereafter Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, reported in (1989)1 SCC 526 has taken the view that recounting of votes cannot be directed as matter of course. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle, unless prima-facie case is made out, it cannot be broken. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below: “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. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below: “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 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 the 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 interest of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes.” 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram, 2000 (8) SCC 355 has reiterated the same principles in paragraph 16, which is being quoted below: “16. The result of the analysis of the above cases would show that this Court has consistently taken the view that recount 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 recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order recount 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 recount 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 recount of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties.” 12. Hon’ble Court in the case of M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and others, 2004 (6) SCC 341 , has taken the view that recounting cannot be ordered on mere asking or merely because margin of the votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner is narrow. Where irregularities in counting of votes was alleged in the election petition but details of names of polling stations, counting centres, tables, round of counting of votes in relation to which alleged irregularities had taken place and basis of material facts and particulars had not been disclosed, the view taken was that the election petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case of scrutiny of ballot papers. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 28 of the said judgment are being quoted below: “15. It is not in dispute that in relation to an election petition, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. In terms of Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is in pari materia with clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 83 an election petition must contain concise statement of material facts. It is true as contended by Mr. Mani that full particulars are required to be set forth in terms of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 83 of the Act which relates to corrupt practice. The question as to what would constitute material facts would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is trite that an order of recounting of votes can be passed when the following ingredients are satisfied: (1) If there is a prima facie case; (2) material facts therefore are pleaded; (3) the Court shall not direct recounting by way of roving or fishing inquiry; and (4) such an objection had been taken recourse to. 16. It is trite that an order of recounting of votes can be passed when the following ingredients are satisfied: (1) If there is a prima facie case; (2) material facts therefore are pleaded; (3) the Court shall not direct recounting by way of roving or fishing inquiry; and (4) such an objection had been taken recourse to. 16. The necessity of ‘maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers’ should be kept in view before a recounting is directed to be made. A direction for recounting shall not be issued only because the margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner is narrow. 17. The requirement of rule of pleadings containing material facts are salutary in nature. 18. The parties are bound by the said rule of pleadings and verification thereof having regard to the fact that an election may not be set aside on hyper-technical grounds although no factual foundation therefor had been laid in the pleading as the elected candidate may not have any hand therein. So far as requirement of pleadings in a case where a direction of recounting of ballot papers has been prayed for, the Court must proceed cautiously and with circumspection having regard to the requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers. It is not disputed that the counting was done at four centres. It is further not disputed that the material facts, as regard as to which category of irregularities as enumerated in the election petition occurred, at which centre and at what time, had not been pleaded. It has further not been disclosed the details as regards tables at which such objections were raised, nor the names of the counting agents had been disclosed. The very basis of the election petition centres round the objections of the Chief election Agent of the election petitioner dated 6-10-1999 (Ex. P/9). We have set out the said objections in extenso hereinbefore. A bare perusal thereof would clearly show that the allegations contained therein are absolutely vague and lack material particulars. Details as regard commission of alleged irregularities police stationwise, assembly segmentwise, polling counterwise or tablewise had not been disclosed. The same by itself goes to show that the Chief Election Agents of the election petitioner did not raise any objection before the returning officer and the counting staff as and when such irregularities purported to have been found out. Details as regard commission of alleged irregularities police stationwise, assembly segmentwise, polling counterwise or tablewise had not been disclosed. The same by itself goes to show that the Chief Election Agents of the election petitioner did not raise any objection before the returning officer and the counting staff as and when such irregularities purported to have been found out. It may be relevant to note that even if the said Agent of the election petitioner had not been examined, inter alia, on the ground that he after declaration of the election result has changed the sides. 28. The law operating in the field is no longer res integra. Inspection of ballot papers can be ordered when in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the Tribunal finds it necessary to so direct in the interest of justice. Discovery and inspection of documents with which the Civil Court is invested with power under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit may be applied but such an order would not be granted as a matter of course having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers. Such an inspection may be ordered when 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; 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... [See Ram Sevak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Ors. 1964 (6) SCR 238 ] AIR 1964 SC 1249 " 13. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh, (2006(64) ALR 905, has reiterated the relevant factors, which are necessary, before order of recount could be passed. Relevant extract is being quoted below:- “Concededly the following factors are relevant for directing recounting of votes: (i) prima facie case must be established; (ii) material facts must be pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) a roving a fishing inquiry shall not be directed by way of an order for recounting of votes; (iv) an objection to the said effect should be raised; and (v) secrecy of ballot papers should be maintained.” 14. Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Udey Chand v. Surat Singh and another, (2009) 10 SCC 170 decided on October 9, 2009 has taken the view that in respect of counting of votes such an order cannot be made as matter of course. It may not be necessary for the Court to hold regular inquiry, but the court is obliged to apply its mind to the facts disclosed in the election petition on which allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded along with some contemporaneous evidence, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. An order for recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction. It has also been clarified therein that even recounting has taken place mater will not become infructuous and from the result emanating from the re-count of votes issues are not to be decided. Paragraphs 27 to 35 of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted below: “27. Having viewed the matter in the light of the principles enunciated above, we are constrained to note that the Tribunal as also the High Court lost sight of the parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes. We find that the allegations in the election petition were not only vague, even the basic material facts as could have made the Tribunal reach a prima facie satisfaction that re-count of ballots was necessary were missing in the petition. Affidavit in support of the allegations, summarised in paragraph 3 above, was neither filed nor called for, more so, in a case where serious allegations of misconduct were levelled against the Returning Officer. Having regard to the fact that concededly the result sheet had been signed by the election petitioner, perhaps, it was a fit case where the examination of the Returning Officer was necessary to elicit the correctness of the allegations in the petition. 28. It is manifest from the observations of the Tribunal, extracted in para 5 above, that the sole factor which had weighed with it to order re-count was the margin of only 4 votes between the appellant and the election petitioner. In our opinion, a narrow margin of 4 votes does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. 29. In our opinion, a narrow margin of 4 votes does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. 29. Apart from laying the foundation in the pleadings, the onus to prove the allegation of irregularity or illegality on the part of the Returning Officer was on the election petitioner, which he failed to discharge. The allegation against the Returning Officer of obtaining the signatures of the election petitioner on a blank result sheet and filling up the same after the election petitioner had left the polling station, was a serious allegation involving dereliction of duty. It could not be accepted at its face value and had to be proved with cogent material, which was not done. 30. We are convinced that in order to overcome his lapse in not availing of the statutory remedy for re-counting of votes as provided in Rule 69 as also the factum of his signing the result sheet in Form 19, the plea of incorrect recording of the result after his departure from the polling station was raised by the election petitioner. Clearly, it was an afterthought. In this regard, the following observations by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chandrika Prasad Yadav’s case (supra) are quite apposite: (SCC page 339): “26. Ordinarily, thus, it is expected that the statutory remedies provided for shall be availed of. If such an opportunity is not availed of by the election petitioner; he has to state the reasons therefor. If no sufficient explanation is furnished by the election petitioner as to why such statutory remedy was not availed of, the Election Tribunal may consider the same as one of the factors for accepting or rejecting the prayer for re-counting. An order of the prescribed authority passed in such application would render great assistance to the Election Tribunal in arriving at a decision as to whether a prima facie case for issuance of direction for re-counting has been made out.” 31. In the light of the afore-stated factual scenario, we are of the opinion that in the present case there was no material on record on the basis whereof the Tribunal could have arrived at a positive finding as to how a prima facie case had been made out to order a re-count of the ballot papers. In the light of the afore-stated factual scenario, we are of the opinion that in the present case there was no material on record on the basis whereof the Tribunal could have arrived at a positive finding as to how a prima facie case had been made out to order a re-count of the ballot papers. The order of recount was passed by the Tribunal mechanically without any application of mind and, therefore, the High Court erred in upholding it. 32. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the contention urged on behalf of the election petitioner to the effect that re-counting having taken place in terms of the Tribunal’s order, this appeal is rendered infructuous. The argument is noted to be rejected. An order of re-count of votes has to stand or fall on the nature of the averments made in the election petition and the material produced in support thereof before the order of re-count is made and not from the result emanating from the re-count of votes. 33. A similar view was echoed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in V.S. Achuthanandan’s case (supra). Speaking for the Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) held thus: “14...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.” 34. A similar contention was rejected by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in M. Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors.9, wherein it was held that even if on re-count it was found that the returned candidate had not secured majority of votes, the result could not have been disturbed unless prima facie case of high degree of probability existed for re-count of votes, which is not the case here. Accordingly, we reject the contention. 35. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed; the election petition, lacking material facts, is rejected and consequently, the order passed by the Election Tribunal directing re-count of the votes is set aside. Accordingly, we reject the contention. 35. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed; the election petition, lacking material facts, is rejected and consequently, the order passed by the Election Tribunal directing re-count of the votes is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to costs in this appeal.” 15. Hon’ble Apex Court, recently, in the case of Kattinokula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others, 2009 (7) Supreme To-Day 478, decided on 23.11.2009 has taken the view that order of recount has to be based on material available and bald plea that some irregularities and illegalities had been committed in counting, the order in question is not sustainable. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment are being extracted below: “15. Having viewed the matter in the light of the principles enunciated above, we are constrained to hold that the Election Tribunal as also the High court lost sight of the parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph 4 of the election petition, containing the grounds of challenge, the allegations regarding irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes were not only vague, even the basic material facts as could have made the Election Tribunal record a prima facie satisfaction that re-count of ballots was necessary, were missing in the petition. It is pertinent to note that upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Election Tribunal had itself observed that the election petitioner had failed to state any material facts regarding the failure of the Election Officer to mention reasons for rejection of votes and further there was no specific allegation as to on which table the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were mixed with the votes polled in favour of the appellant; and on which table the votes polled in his favour were rejected as invalid. Precisely for this reason, and in our view rightly, the Election Tribunal had declined to take into consideration the evidence adduced by the election petitioner on the point. It is a settled principle of law that evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor such evidence canbe taken into consideration. Moreover, even the two material issues, viz. It is a settled principle of law that evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor such evidence canbe taken into consideration. Moreover, even the two material issues, viz. as to whether the counting of votes by the Election Officer was in accordance with the rules and regulations as also whether the votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were rejected as invalid or there was improper mixing of the votes have been found in favour of the appellant. It is evident from the observations of the Election Tribunal, extracted in Para 7 above, that the sole factor which had weighed with it to order re-count was that no prejudice will be caused to the appellant if the ballot papers are re-counted. Similarly, the factor which weighed with the High Court to affirm the view of the Election Tribunal is that re-counting of votes will reinforce the transparency in the process of election, particularly when the margin of votes was very narrow. It needs to be emphasised that having regard to the consequences emanating from the direction of re-counting, which may even breach the secrecy of ballot, the doctrine of prejudice is an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count. Similarly, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. In the first instance, material facts in this behalf have to be stated clearly in the election petition and then proved by cogent evidence. Undoubtedly, the onus to prove the allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election process on the part of the Election Officer is on the election petitioner and not on the Election Officer, as held by the authorities below. In the present case, both the forums below have found that material facts were lacking in the election petition. Having held so, in our view, the election petition should have been dismissed on this short ground alone. In that view of the matter, the observation of the Election Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, that the Election Officer had failed to say anything regarding corrections and over-writings in Form 26, are neither factually nor legally sound. 16. Having held so, in our view, the election petition should have been dismissed on this short ground alone. In that view of the matter, the observation of the Election Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, that the Election Officer had failed to say anything regarding corrections and over-writings in Form 26, are neither factually nor legally sound. 16. We are of the opinion that in the light of the afore-noted factual scenario and the fact that findings of the Election Tribunal on issues No.1 and 2 were in favour of the appellant, except for a bald plea that some irregularities and illegalities had been committed in counting, there was no material on record on the basis whereof the Election Tribunal could have arrived at a positive finding that a case to order re-count of the ballot papers had been made out. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the order of re-count passed by the Election Tribunal was illegal and the High Court erred in upholding it. 17. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed; the order passed by the Election Tribunal ordering re-count of the ballot papers, and affirmed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to costs, quantified at Rs.20,000/-.” 16. On the parameter as has been set out in the judgments referred to and quoted above, on the basis of pleadings available on record, the facts of the present case are being adverted to. In the present case factual position is that election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 has been filed questioning the authority of petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Achroo Ladhaurda, Block Raya, Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura. In the said election petition so filed, an application was moved requesting therein that petitioner should not be permitted to function as Pradhan. To the said application objections were filed. Another application supported by affidavit was moved with request for recounting. Objections were also filed to the same on 10.1.2011, and therein it was categorically mentioned that the request made by the election petitioner could not be accepted by the Election Tribunal unless and until evidence was led and the case pleaded was established before the Election Tribunal. Another application supported by affidavit was moved with request for recounting. Objections were also filed to the same on 10.1.2011, and therein it was categorically mentioned that the request made by the election petitioner could not be accepted by the Election Tribunal unless and until evidence was led and the case pleaded was established before the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal in the present case has accepted this position that till that date no written statement had been filed, but on the basis of the documents so filed, proceeded to form opinion, that as there was difference of one vote only, the end of justice demanded that recounting be done. The opinion which has been formed by the Election Tribunal is perse unjustifiable, for the reasons that in the present case till date even written statement has not been filed, evidence has not been led, then merely because there was difference of only one vote, recounting could not have been ordered. For passing order of recounting pre-requisite conditions have been set out by Hon’ble Apex Court, and as such in the garb of recounting, secrecy of ballots cannot be permitted to be breached, as it is sacrosanct. In the present case order impugned clearly reflects that no exercise has been undertaken and merely on the ground that there was difference of only one vote, after noting down the arguments advanced by the parties, Election Tribunal has proceeded to mention that for the purpose of final disposal recounting shall be essential. Such a view of the Election Tribunal is not at all as per the parameters settled by Apex Court. Requisite exercise which ought to have been undertaken, has not at all been undertaken by the Election Tribunal, as such in the facts of the case, the order passed by the Election Tribunal directing recounting cannot be approved of. 17. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.01.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Election Tribunal is directed to decide the election petition preferably within next six months, subject to full cooperation being extended by the parties, and if parameters as provided for by Apex Court are fulfilled, then order for recounting can be passed. (Petition allowed) _____________