JUDGMENT B.K.NAYAK, J.-Order Dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi in Election Petition No.1 of 2012 allowing application filed by the present Opp. Party No.1 for recounting of votes (Annexure-2) & the Order Dated 15.09.2012 passed by the District Judge, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi in Election Appeal No.2 of 2012 dismissing the appeal filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as not maintainable (Annexure-4), have been assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioner & Opp. Party No.1 contested the election to the post of Sarpanch of Goribandha Grama Panchayat in Kasinagar Block of Gajapati District. The Petitioner having been elected as Sarpanch, Opp. Party No.1 filed Election Petition, No.1 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi challenging such election inter alia on the ground that at least five valid votes cast in his favour have not been counted & that four invalid votes were counted in favour of the present Petitioner. Apart from the above, a prayer for inspection of ballot papers for recounting being made in the election petition itself, Opp. Party No.1 also filed a separate petition for recounting of votes & the said petition was allowed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by his impugned Order Dated 21.08.2012. The Petitioner challenged the said, order in Election Appeal No.2 of 2012 in the Court of the District Judge, Gajapati & by Order Dated 15.09.2012, the Learned District Judge rejected the appeal as not maintainable against the interim order. 3. In the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai: AIR 1964 SC 1249 , .the Apex Court held that 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 election Petitioner must be set out with precession supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice requires. be granted. But a mere allegation that the Petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper rejection, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection. 4. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice requires. be granted. But a mere allegation that the Petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper rejection, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection. 4. With regard to requirements which may justify recounting of votes the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Sharma v. Commissioner & Returning Officer: AIR 1984 SC 654 observed as follows in para 4 thereof: "It is well established that in order to obtain recount of votes a proper foundation is required to be laid by the election Petitioner indicating the precise material on the basis of which it could be urged by him with some substance that there has been either improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the elected candidate or improper rejection of invalid votes in favour of the defeated candidate or wrong counting of votes in favour of the elected candidates which had in reality been cast in favour of the defeated candidate." In the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram & ors: (2000) 8 SCC 35, the Apex Court has held that the Petitioner, who seeks recount should allege & 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 allegations it can order recount of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct 'in a democratic process of election & it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. In the case of M. Chinaswamy v. K. C. Palianiswamy : (2004) 6 SCC 341 , it has be8n held by the Apex Court that the question as to what would constitute material facts would however depend upon the facts & circumstance of each case. It is trite that an order of recounting of votes can be passed when the following ingredients are satisfied; (i) if there is a prima-facie case; (ii) material facts there for are pleaded: (iii) the Court shall not direct recounting by way of roving or fishing enquiry; & (iv) such an objection had been taken recourse to. The direction for recounting sha1l not be issued only because the margin of votes between the returned candidate & the election Petitioner is narrow. The direction for recounting sha1l not be issued only because the margin of votes between the returned candidate & the election Petitioner is narrow. In the case of Udey Chand v. Surat Singh: (2009) 10 SCC 170 , it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a petition for recounting of votes must contain adequate statement of material facts on which the election Petitioner relies in support of his allegations & it must also be supported by some contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in the counting. 5. In the election petition filed by Opp. Party No.1, it is asserted that the counting of votes by the Presiding Officer was done provisionally & the Petitioner was declared to have been elected by a margin of nine votes & therefore, again on 21.02.2112 recounting of votes was done in which both the Petitioner & Opp. Party No.1 were found to have got equal number of votes & therefore, a lot was drawn in which the present Petitioner got elected, but Opp. Party No.1 objected to drawing of lot. Thereafter on 23.2.2012, Opp. Party No.1 filed a petition before Opp. Party No.2 for further recounting of votes, which was not accepted. So far, as the averments with regard to improper acceptance of invalid votes in favour of Petitioner & improper rejection of valid votes in favour of Opp. Party No.1, it is merely stated in para 4 of the election petition that at least five valid votes cast in favour of Opp. Party No.1 have been improperly rejected & four invalid votes were improperly accepted in favour of the present Petitioner. There is no other particular with regard to the Ward or Booth to which the valid & invalid votes pertain & the nature of invalidity from which the votes suffered. In his evidence before the Court below, Opp. Party No.1 examined as P.W.1 admitted that he had not raised any objection in writing for recounting of votes & he has merely stated, in support of his averment, that five valid votes polled in his favour were improperly rejected & four invalid votes were improperly counted in favour of the present Petitioner. It is thus clear that neither in the pleading nor in the evidence there is sufficient material particulars making out a case for recounting of votes: 6. It is thus clear that neither in the pleading nor in the evidence there is sufficient material particulars making out a case for recounting of votes: 6. The Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has allowed the petition for recounting of the votes merely holding that since on recounting the votes of both parties tied & there is allegation of improper rejection & acceptance of votes, it is a fit case for inspection of all the ballots of the Panchayat & for recounting. 7. In the case of Baldev Singh v. Shinder Pal Singh & anr: (2007) 1 SCC 341 , in almost similar fact situation, where both the candidates secured equal number of votes & there was no documentary evidence regarding drawing of lots, direction for recounting having been ordered, the Apex Court held that no case for recounting was made out. 8. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in all the decisions referred to above & there being no sufficient material particulars either in the pleadings or evidence making out a case for recounting of votes, the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has gone wrong in directing recounting of the votes. 9. In the light of the discussions made above, the Writ Petition is allowed & the impugned Order Dated 21.08.2012 vide Annexure-2 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi in Election Petition No.1 of 2012 is quashed. No costs.