ORDER 1. Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 26-12-2012 by which the Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 declaring the election of the petitioner/returned candidate void. Brief resumption of relevant facts necessary for decision of the petition are that election to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat-Chilfi was conducted on 31-1-2010 under the provisions of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short Panchayat Act) and C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short Panchayat Election Petitions Rules). In the said election, the petitioner was declared having received highest number of votes i.e. 297 amongst all the candidates including respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared elected and declaration to that effect was issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the election of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Act. The Election Tribunal/SDO passed an order on 14-3-2011 directing recount of ballet papers. This order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 2583 of 2011. In the mean-time, recount was done and vide order dated 5-5-2011, petitioner's election was declared void and respondent No. 1 the election petitioner was declared elected. 2. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 28-8-2012. It was held that there was no proper trial of the election petition. The order directing recount and subsequent declarations were held illegal and set aside. The Election Tribunal was directed to hold the trial afresh after framing issues, recording evidence on the issues and decide the election petition in accordance with law. 3. The election Tribunal, thereafter, framed issue in the election petition and after affording the parties to election petition, opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence, passed impugned order which has given rise to this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order setting aside petitioner's election, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the election petitioner failed to prove by leading any admissible, oral or documentary evidence that any corrupt practice was played by the petitioner or by his agent or by any other person with consent of election agent. 4. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order setting aside petitioner's election, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the election petitioner failed to prove by leading any admissible, oral or documentary evidence that any corrupt practice was played by the petitioner or by his agent or by any other person with consent of election agent. He further submitted that election petitioner failed to lead any evidence nor was any other material produced before the Election Tribunal that votes were cast either in the name of dead persons or in the name of those, who had already migrated from the Gram Panchayat area. It is next contended that the election petitioner did not come out with specific pleading, much less proof that any of the votes cast in favour of election petitioner were improperly accepted nor could prove that any valid vote cast in favour of election petitioner was illegally rejected. Even then, the Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition on conjecture and surmise and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is mat the election petition has been rightly allowed because there is abundance of evidence to prove improper acceptance of votes in favour of the petitioner and further that false votes were cast during election. He submits that specific pleadings regarding false votes being cast during election were not denied. Therefore, in the absence of any such denial, the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has recorded its specific finding that even though an objection/complaint was made immediately upon counting of votes with a prayer for recounting, no enquiry was made by the returning officer or the presiding officer for recount of all the votes already counted. This resulted in violation of provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Panchayat Election Petitioners Rules and materially affected the result of the returned candidate. 6. This resulted in violation of provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Panchayat Election Petitioners Rules and materially affected the result of the returned candidate. 6. Shri Arun Sao, who appeared for presiding officer/respondents 9, 10 and 12 submits that the presiding officers have been wrongly impleaded in the election petition against the provisions of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules and it has been stated that no objection in writing, as contemplated under Rule 18 of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules, was raised before the presiding officer. 7. The election to the office of Sarpanch or Panchas of Gram Panchayat are governed by the provisions contained in the Panchayat Act and the procedure to be followed for conduct of election is provided in the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. Election to the office of Sarpanch as office bearers of a Gram Panchayat can be called in question only by way of filing of election petition as provided in Section 122 of the Panchayat Act. The trial of election petition is governed by the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. 8. The grounds on which an election petition can be declared void or an order of recount can be ordered in favour of election petitioner have been exhaustively enumerated in Rule 21 of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. The rule being relevant for the purpose of decision in the matter is extracted herein-below:- "21. Grounds for declaring election to be void-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion:- (a) That on the date of his election the returned candidate who was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act. (b) That any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent. (c) That any nomination paper has been improperly rejected. (d) That the result of the election insofar as it concerns returned candidate has been materially affected:- (i) By the improper acceptance or any nomination. (ii) By a corrupt practice having been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by a person acting with the consent of the candidate or his agent. (iii) By the improper acceptance, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. (ii) By a corrupt practice having been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by a person acting with the consent of the candidate or his agent. (iii) By the improper acceptance, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. (iv) By any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the specified officer shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the prescribed authority a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied:- (a) That no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the instructions and without the consent of the candidate. (b) That the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election. (c) That in all other respect the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent, then the prescribed authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the election of a returned candidate can be declared void only on the grounds specified in the provisions. Therefore, before declaring an election void, the Election Tribunal has to record clear finding based on oral and/or documentary evidence collected during trial that the election is liable to be declared void for any of the ground enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 21. What would constitute corrupt practice has also been clearly enumerated in Rule 22 of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. 9. Therefore, election of a returned candidate can be declared void or an order of recount can be ordered by Election Tribunal only upon proof of any of the grounds which are exhaustive and no other grounds. 10. The pleadings of the election petitioner/respondent No. 1 show that the election of the petitioner was challenged on the grounds inter aha that false votes were cast either in the name of dead or those who had already migrated from the panchayat area. In addition, by way of amendment, the election petitioner also pleaded that valid votes cast in his favour were improperly and illegally rejected. In addition, by way of amendment, the election petitioner also pleaded that valid votes cast in his favour were improperly and illegally rejected. In order to prove the aforesaid grounds seeking declaration that the election is void, election petitioners/respondent No. 1 examined three witnesses namely Shatrughan Sahu-election petitioner himself, Jaleshwar Sahu and Sukhnandan Yadav. On the basis of this oral evidence, the election petitioner sought to prove the grounds pleaded in the election petition. 11. Pleadings of election petitioner reveal that the election of the returned candidate was challenged on following two grounds:- (a) False voting in the name of dead or migrated persons. (b) Improper rejection of valid votes cast in favour of election petitioner. In the entire election petition, there are no specific pleadings with regard to improper acceptance of votes in favour of returned candidate. 12. The oral evidence led by the election petitioner is blissfully vague insofar as ground with regard to casting of false votes in the name of dead or migrated persons is concerned. In the oral evidence of three witnesses, there is no specific mention or detail of the persons who are said to be dead and in whose names false votes were allegedly cast. The election petitioner did not lead any documentary evidence nor any records of election were produced before the Election Tribunal to prove that false votes were cast in the name of any dead person. 13. Though, there is an allegation in the election petition that number of persons have migrated and that they were not present in the panchayat area, false voting in their name had taken place but in the evidence, there are no such details of those persons nor any proof that in the names of those persons, votes were cast. There is absolutely no evidence that those persons are already migrated and not available in the Gram Panchayat area. The grounds, if I may say so, are itself vague. It is not the case of the election petitioner that certain persons, whose names were included in the voter list subsequently ceased to be the resident of the area and their names were liable to be deleted from the voter list or actually deleted from the voter list. None of those persons in whose names, false votes were alleged to have been cast were examined by the election petitioner. 14. None of those persons in whose names, false votes were alleged to have been cast were examined by the election petitioner. 14. There is evidence on record that some of the ballot papers which were liable to be rejected, containing more than one seal, were being counted in favour of returned candidate/Ajuram. This evidence is liable to be ignored as no such grounds have been raised in the election petition. The evidence as referred to above in substance is an evidence of improper acceptance of votes. In the entire election petition, I could not find that there is any specific pleading challenging the election of returned candidate on the ground of improper acceptance of votes in favour of returned candidate. Therefore, the evidence to that extent without there being any pleading is liable to be ignored. 15. Though by way of amendment the election petitioner raised a ground of improper rejection of valid ballot papers cast in his favour, there is no such evidence to support such pleadings. 16. The allegation that an application for recount of ballot papers was submitted before the returning officer, apart from being bereft of specific pleadings in that regard in the election petition, is not proved by any categoric evidence in that regard. The election petitioner failed to prove receipt of any application for recount as provided under Rule 80 of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. As a matter of fact, the election petitioner has not led any documentary evidence whatsoever to prove any of the grounds including grounds relating to violation of provisions relating to conduct of election contained in the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. 17. The Election Tribunal completely misdirected itself in holding the grounds as proved, by recording that the returned candidate has not specifically denied allegations of false voting. At the first place, in the absence of there being any specific allegation that the false votes were cast at the instance or by the retuned candidate or by his election agent or by any other person at the instance of the election petitioner, even if there was no specific denial, it could not be held as proved. It was the burden of the election petitioner to prove by leading oral and documentary evidence or by seeking requisition or production of records of election that false votes were cast in the name of dead or migrated persons. It was the burden of the election petitioner to prove by leading oral and documentary evidence or by seeking requisition or production of records of election that false votes were cast in the name of dead or migrated persons. In the absence of there being any evidence, only on the ground that it was not specifically denied by the election petitioner, it could not be held that the election of the returned candidate was materially affected by acceptance of void votes. 18. The conclusion, therefore, is that there was no legally admissible evidence led by the election petitioner to prove any of the grounds pleaded in the election petition and evidence of improper acceptance of votes in favour of returned candidate was without any pleadings or grounds raised in that behalf in the election petition. The Election Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the election of the petitioner void, without any of the grounds exhaustively enumerated in Rule 21 of the Panchayat Election Petitions Rules. In the result, the impugned order is held illegal and set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.