Judgment : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner’s selection as “Samiti Sabhya” of Beguniapada Block from the Beguniapada Gram Panchayat Constituency in the election held on 15.02.2012 has been challenged by the opposite party no.1 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khallikote, Ganjam in Election Petition No. 01 of 2012 wherein direction was given vide impugned order dated 17.08.2013 for recounting of ballot papers. 2. The short fact of the case in hand is that the opposite party no.1 filed election dispute before the Election Tribunal to declare the election of the present petitioner, who has been elected as “Samiti Sabhya” as void and declared the opposite party no.1, the election petitioner as duly elected “Samiti Sabhya” by recounting the votes. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1-election petitioner sought for recounting of votes cast in favour of the petitioner were improperly rejected and some were improperly admitted and counted in favour of the returned candidate. Since the difference of vote is only one as declared by the Election Officer, therefore there should be recounting of votes to arrive at a just conclusion with regard to the finding of the truthness of the counting of votes. 3. The petitioner, who is opposite party no.1 in the Election Dispute case and the returned candidate stated that he has secured 853 nos. of votes whereas the opposite party no.1-election petitioner has secured 850 nos. of votes. After declaration of result, objection was raised from the side of the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 herein and on consideration of such objection the Election Officer allowed for recounting. After recounting, the total number of votes was enhanced to 2421 in place of 2412 and 9 surplus votes came out as a result returned candidate lost two nos. of votes and accordingly the returned candidate obtained 851 votes instead of 853 votes. But the vote of election petitioner-opposite party no.1 remained at 850. Therefore, the present petitioner was declared elected as “Samiti Sabhya” by a margin of one vote. of votes and accordingly the returned candidate obtained 851 votes instead of 853 votes. But the vote of election petitioner-opposite party no.1 remained at 850. Therefore, the present petitioner was declared elected as “Samiti Sabhya” by a margin of one vote. The petitioner, who is the returned candidate stated that the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the election petition pleaded as under: “(3) That during counting of votes the Election Officer improperly rejected many votes polled in favour of the petitioner and also improperly admitted so many votes in favour of the declared returned candidate, the O.P. No.1 (4) That, the petitioner has obtained majority of lawful votes and he is entitled to be declared as returned candidate. (5) That, for the error in counting of votes and improper rejection of votes in favour of the petitioner and improper admission of votes in favour of the O.P. No.1 the petitioner could not be declared as returned candidate.” At the same time, the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 has sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) directing the Collector, Ganjam to produce the used ballot papers for verification and recounting. (ii) to verify the used ballot papers and recount the votes. (iii) declaring the election of returned candidate Jagannath Sethi, O.P. No.1 is void. (iv) declaring the petitioner as duly elected. (v) any other or further reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.” The opposite party no.1-election petitioner also filed an application vide Annexure-1 with a prayer to “pass an order for verification (inspection) of ballot papers and recounting of votes in the best interest of justice.” The learned Tribunal allowed the said petition on 13.8.2013, which is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order passed by the learned Election Tribunal under Annexure-3 on the ground that the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 has not made out a case in his favour for recounting of votes inasmuch neither he came with details of the material facts and full particulars of the ballot etc. for asking recounting nor adduced any evidence to establish the factum of illegality and irregularity in counting. for asking recounting nor adduced any evidence to establish the factum of illegality and irregularity in counting. Above all it is urged that when there was a discrepancy of three number of votes between the returned candidate and the opposite party no.1, on the request of opposite party no.1, recounting has been done by the Election Officer. As a result, it is found that the petitioner succeeded in the election by a margin of one vote. P.W.2 has not deposed the exact number of ballots, which are alleged to have been illegally accepted or rejected in ward-wise counting, rather he has denied to have maintained any note of the same. So, the petition should have been dismissed. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of this Court in Narayan Chandra Nayak v. Harish Chandra Jena, 2009 (Supp.-I) OLR 513 and Ananda Chandra Ojha v. Ashok Sahu, 2013 (I) OLR 575 . 5. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 states that since there is a margin of one vote, the court should allow for verification/inspection of ballot papers and recounting of votes. He relies upon the judgment of apex Court in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao, 2010 (I) OLR (SC) 66. 6. Considering the rival contention of the parties and after perusing the records, it is found that the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 has not made out a case either by adducing any oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of his contention nor there is any pleadings furnishing material particulars with regard to the recounting of votes. While examining P.W.2, who has actively participated in verification of ballot papers and recounting of votes, nothing has been elicited pointing out the discrepancies in counting of votes. On the other hand, the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the election petition filed objection specifically urging that since the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 has not come out with a specific pleading regarding material facts as to improper admission or rejection of ballots and discrepancies in recounting of votes and as such no illegality and irregularity has been pointed out in the pleadings of the election petitioner-opposite party no.1. 7. 7. It is well settled principle of law as laid down by this Court in Sayed Mustafiz Ahmed v. Samir Dey, AIR 1997 Orissa 151 that the allegations of irregularity/illegality in counting of votes must be pleaded adequately with material facts. 8. In Sudarsha Avasthi v. Shiv Pal Singh, (2008) 7 SCC 604 the apex Court has insisisted that an election petition for declaration of the election of a returned candidate as void can be entertained only if the petitioner furnishes all material facts and full particulars and inefficiency thereof, is to be fatal. More so, unbelievable and impracticable allegations of serious nature should be taken more seriously as it may amount to totally a cock and bull story. It is further held that it is the solemn duty of the appellant to plead material facts. in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and others, AIR 1970 SC 276 , the apex Court has held as follows: “The basic requirements to be satisfied before an election tribunal can permit the inspection of ballot papers, are (1) that the petition for setting aside the election must contain an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and (2) the tribunal must be 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. The material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. In other words they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition. If an election petitioner in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis on which he arrived at those figures.” In this Case without giving details of the material particulars with regard to illegally accepting or rejecting the ballots, its serial no., source of information and the name of the person concerned, petition has been filed, thereby it suffers from non-supply of material particulars, consequently the application is not entertainable. 9. 9. This Court in Kanak Vardhan Singhdeo v. Sri Bibekananda Meher, AIR 1991 Orissa 231 has dealt with the circumstances in which inspection of ballot papers could be allowed. This Court held that there was no imperative necessity to allow inspection as the petitioner could not make out a case for recounting of ballot papers. Thus, the prayer for recounting was found to be nothing but a clever move to make out a roving and fishing inquiry. 10. The apex Court in Harikrishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and T.A. Ahammed Kabeer v. A.A. Azeez & others, AIR 2003 SC 2271 held that the success of a winning candidate is not to be lightly interfered with. The burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside on any of the ground available in the law. In an election petition if nobody adduces evidence it is the election petitioner who fails. The secrecy of the ballot must be zealously guarded. However, the fact of margin of votes for which a successful candidate has been declared elected is very narrow undoubtedly an important factor is to be considered that would not by itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify recounting by the Court. This view has been taken by the apex Court in R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, AIR 1980 SC 206 which reads as follows:- “If the lead is relatively little and/or other legal infirmities or factual flaws hover around, recount is proper, not otherwise. In short, where the difference is microscopic, the stage is set for a recount given some plus point of clear suspicion or legal lacuna militating against the regularity, accuracy, impartiality or objectivity bearing on the original counting.” In Jayanta Samal v. Kulamani Behera and another, (2004) 13 SCC 552 , the apex Court held that there is strict proof of the circumstances making out a case for recount should not be insisted on by unduly stretching the rule. 11. 11. Considering the above mentioned law governing the field, it is well settled that before an election tribunal can permit scrutiny of the ballot papers and order for recounting the basic requirements are to be fulfilled, namely:- (i) the Election petition seeking recount of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegalities in counting of votes are bounded; (ii) on the basis of the 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, are satisfied. Therefore, recounting can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where the Courts come to the conclusion that the Election Petitioner is not seeking a roving and fishing inquiry and he has pleaded the material facts and adduced evidence in support of his case and the returned candidate fails to rebut the same. The same has been discussed in plethora of judgments in Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Karta Singh & others, AIR 1966 SC 773 , Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 , Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1791 , M. Chinnasmay v. K.C. Palanisamy & others, AIR 2004 SC 541 , Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar & others, AIR 2004 SC 2036 , Tanaji Ramachandra Nimhan v. Swati Vanayak Nimhan, AIR 2006 SC 1218 and Baldev Singh v. Shinder Pal Singh & another, (2007) 1 SCC 341 . 12. In view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in plethora of judgments mentioned (supra), it is to be considered whether the learned Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order directing for recounting. Learned counsel for the Election Petitioner-opposite party no.1 relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao, 2010 (I) OLR (SC) 66. Learned counsel for the Election Petitioner-opposite party no.1 relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao, 2010 (I) OLR (SC) 66. Considering the principles laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court in the matter of recounting of votes and applying the same to the fact and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the election petitioner-opposite party no.1 has not pleaded by furnishing material particulars which is the basic requirement to file an interim application seeking for a relief, which would amount to final relief by making roving and fishing inquiry, which is not permissible. In the event the recounting is permitted as a matter of interim relief, it would amount to final relief in the election petition itself. 13. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the learned Election Tribunal has committed gross illegality in directing for recounting of ballot papers fixing to 20.08.2013 at 2.00 P.M. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.08.2013 under Annexure-3 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in conformity with the provisions of law. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order to cost. Petition allowed.