ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought quashment of impugned order dated 18-6-2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Niwadi District Tikamgarh, by which he has directed to recount the votes. 2. Sans unnecessary details fact lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that Petitioner contested the election for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chachavali, Janpad Niwadi, District Tikamgarh and was declared as returned candidate after defeating her nearest rival (election Petitioner) who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in this petition, by a margin of 20 votes. 3. The Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 122 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') on several grounds and prayed that the ballot papers be recounted. 4. The facts and grounds pleaded and raised by the Respondent No. 1 in the memorandum of election petition were refuted by the Petitioner in her written statement. 5. The learned Election Tribunal also framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After the evidence was recorded, the matter was heard by the Election Tribunal and after considering the pleadings and evidence placed on record directed to recount the votes by the impugned order. 6. In this manner this petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 7. It has been put forth by Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes because the secrecy of a ballot is sacrosanct is democracy. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 640 . By placing reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Ors. /SC/0158/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 742 , it has been contended that the recount of votes cannot be ordered in a casual manner and it cannot be ordered because the margin of defeat is meagre. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. /SC/0158/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 742 , it has been contended that the recount of votes cannot be ordered in a casual manner and it cannot be ordered because the margin of defeat is meagre. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 355 , on the same principle and has submitted that recounting of votes should be rarely ordered. On the same principle Learned Counsel has placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2036 . 8. On these premised submissions, it has been argued that the order impugned is per se illegal and the same bet set aside. 9. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Election Tribunal directing to recount the votes, which is based on necessary pleadings in the memorandum of election petition, on the basis of which issues were also framed and evidence was also led and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order of learned Election Tribunal and, hence, this petition be dismissed. 10. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The decisions which have been cited by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner nowhere says that in an appropriate case if there is necessary pleading in the memorandum of election petition and a prayer is made in that regard and if the case is made out in evidence then recounting cannot be ordered though it should be rarely ordered and not in casual manner. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra), although in Para 13, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the order would be justifiable directing to recount the votes when it is proved by the material placed by the election Petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra), although in Para 13, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the order would be justifiable directing to recount the votes when it is proved by the material placed by the election Petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. In the same para, it has been further held by the Supreme Court that if 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, it may be ordered in the interest of justice by the Election Tribunal. In Para 15 of the said decision the Supreme Court has held that the 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. Almost in all other decisions relied by learned Senior Counsel, the same principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court. Hence, on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, I would like to examine the impugned order, in which the Election Tribunal has directed to recount the votes. 12. In Ground No. (1) of memorandum of election petition (Annexure P-1), it has been pleaded that at Polling Centre No. 83 on the date of election (24-1-2010) total 554 votes were cast and a slip of actual votes cast was also given by Presiding Officer to the election Petitioner but on 1-2-2010 when the ballot box was opened and votes were counted, in all 563 votes were found, which would mean that 9 ballot papers in excess were found in the ballot box and when the election Petitioner informed the Returning Officer about the said illegality by submitting the slip provided to him, the same was torn by the Returning Officer. In the similar manner in Polling Centre No. 84 total 552 votes were cast and a slip in that regard was given to the election Petitioner but only 540 ballot papers were taken out from the ballot box and in this manner 12 ballot papers were found less and when the election Petitioner pointed out this illegality to the Returning Officer, he became annoyed. The election Petitioner deliberately did not submit the slip to the Returning Officer because the first slip submitted was already torn by him and not only this, the election Petitioner also submitted application to the Returning Officer but it was not received by the Returning Officer. 13. In para (1) of the grounds of the election petition it has been specifically pleaded that several objections were made by the election Petitioner to the Returning Officer and also prayed to recount the ballot papers but the Returning Officer did not pay any heed to the request made by the election Petitioner nor ordered to recount the ballot papers. In very specific words, it has been pleaded by the election Petitioner that the application, which the election Petitioner submitted to the Returning Officer, was not accepted by him and not only this, he also scolded on the election Petitioner and asked him to go away. 14. In Ground No. (2) of the memorandum of election petition it has been specifically pleaded by the election Petitioner that deliberately the ballot papers, which were cast in favour of the election Petitioner, were kept in the bundle of rejected ballot papers, although out of 24 ballot papers which were rejected by the Returning Officer, only 3 ballot papers were required to be rejected but despite the objections were raised, 21 ballot papers which were correctly cast in his favour were rejected. 15. On going through the written statement filed by the Returned candidate/Petitioner, this Court finds that all these averments of the election Petitioner are denied. Issues have also been struck by the Election Tribunal and on bare perusal of the order sheet dated 24-4-2010 of the Election Tribunal, this Court finds that a specific issue was framed as to whether sufficient ground to recount the ballot papers of Village Panchayat Chachavali for the post of Sarpanch has been made out or not. In Order to prove the said issue, evidence has been adduced by the election Petitioner and also examined his witnesses in this regard. The gist of the evidence of the election Petitioner as well as of the witnesses has been stated by the learned Election Tribunal in the impugned order. In Order to prove the said issue, evidence has been adduced by the election Petitioner and also examined his witnesses in this regard. The gist of the evidence of the election Petitioner as well as of the witnesses has been stated by the learned Election Tribunal in the impugned order. Not only this, the Election Tribunal was quite aware about the proposition of law that recounting of ballot papers is sacrosanct and it should not casually made on mere say but it should be made out from the necessary material. The learned Election Tribunal on the basis of the pleading in this regard made in the election petition as well as the denial of the returned candidate in the written statement framed necessary issues. 16. I have also gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the specific prayer made by the election Petitioner in the memorandum of election petition and I find that not only there is sufficient pleading in this regard but a specific prayer has also been made in the memorandum of election petition. Since a specific issue No. 2 is framed in that regard and definite evidence has been adduced by the election Petitioner and his witness, although the evidence in rebuttal has also been adduced by the returned candidate, I am of the view that a case to recount the ballot papers has been made out by the election Petitioner and the learned Election Tribunal has rightly passed an order to recount the ballot papers after appreciating and marshalling the evidence led by the parties on the touchstone and anvil of the legal position which has been highlighted by the Apex Court in several decisions. 17. 17. On going through the findings arrived at by the Election Tribunal on internal Page 13 of the impugned order (running page 84 of the writ petition before this Court), this Court finds that since there is a specific pleading of the Petitioner and the evidence has also been led in that regard that on the request made by the election Petitioner by submitting the application to recount the votes, the prayer was not accepted and even the application was not received, I am of the view that apart from other reasons assigned by the learned Election Tribunal by taking into account this ground also if the Election Tribunal has ordered to recount the ballot papers, no illegality has been committed by him. 18. The purpose of distinguishing the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in the beginning of this order is that there is no watertight compartment and indeed the Supreme Court has also held so that if in appropriate case where there is necessary pleading and a specific prayer to recount the votes has been made and definite evidence has been adduced in that regard, recounting of votes can be ordered. 19. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and is not required to be set aside. Ex consequenti this petition is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2000/- if pre-certified.