JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction, order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure-A to the petition) by which the application of the petitioner for recounting of the votes/ballots has been rejected by the Election Officer of the Sabarkantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited [hereinafter referred to “Milk Producers’ Union]. [2.0] It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Milk Producers’ Union was conducted and held on 21.10.2014. That in all there were 16 candidates who contested the election and the petitioner contested the election from Constituency No.13. According to the petitioner the counting of the votes started at 7 am on 22.10.2014 and it came to be concluded at about 11.00 pm in the night. According to the petitioner during the counting of the votes, the Election Officer had rejected as many as 130 votes which is against the provisions of the Act, Rules and byelaws. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that out of 130 votes rejected by the Election Officer, 90 votes came to be rejected solely on the ground that the concerned voter has cast the vote in favour of less than 16 candidates. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as such as per the Act, Rules and byelaws it provides for maximum votes to be cast but there is no such provision that if a voter has cast the vote in favour of lesser number of candidates, his ballot can be rejected. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time the petitioner did raise oral objection and requested for recount of the votes, however the Election Officer did not consider the same as officers wanted to go on Diwali leave. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the Election Officer was on leave for the period from 23.10.2014 to 01.11.2014. Therefore, the petitioner thereafter sent the application dated 30.10.2014 to the Election Officer by RPAD post requesting for recount of all the votes more particularly the votes which came to be rejected and vide impugned communication dated 03.11.2014, the said request has been turned down. Therefore, the petitioner thereafter sent the application dated 30.10.2014 to the Election Officer by RPAD post requesting for recount of all the votes more particularly the votes which came to be rejected and vide impugned communication dated 03.11.2014, the said request has been turned down. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application. [3.0] Shri V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that rejection of 90 votes out of 130 votes on the ground that the concerned voter has cast less number of votes [less than 16]. It is submitted that rejection of all those votes is absolutely illegal and more particularly contrary to Rule 56(d) of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1982”]. It is submitted that Rule 56(d) of the Rules, 1982 provides that the ballot paper can be rejected if the candidate has recorded on the ballot paper more votes than he is entitled to give. It is submitted that therefore rejection of approximately 90 votes out of 130 rejected votes is absolutely arbitrary and as such contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1982. [3.1] It is further submitted by Shri Vaghela, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the remaining approximately 30 to 40 votes came to be rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that there are more than one mark on the vote. It is submitted that the aforesaid is also contrary to Rule 56(h)(ii) of the Rules, 1982. It is submitted that Rule 56(h)(ii) of the Rules, 1982 provides that the ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once. It is submitted that therefore, the Election Officer has illegally and malafide and with a view to support respondent No.2 has rejected the ballot papers which were in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has lost by only 3 votes, the Election Officer ought to have permitted and/or granted the request of the petitioner for recount. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition. [4.0] Present petition is opposed by Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Election Officer and Shri Ashish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present petition. [4.0] Present petition is opposed by Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Election Officer and Shri Ashish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. [5.0] An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 – Election Officer. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Election Officer, it is specifically denied that any request was made by the petitioner at the time of counting for recount of the votes. It is submitted that as such counting of the votes was carried out on 22.10.2014 in presence of all the contesting candidates/their agents on the projector and the result of the counting of the votes on every round was shown to all the concerned and even the copy of the result was also given to the contesting candidates and their agents and for the same, necessary signatures of the acknowledgment had been taken and the same was recorded in the proceedings. It is submitted that on 22.10.2014, after the counting was over, the petitioner had never raised any objection in writing or even orally and requested for recount. It is submitted that on the contrary in the proceedings which was drawn after conclusion of the counting of all the votes, all the contesting candidates including the petitioner signed the proceedings acknowledging that the counting has taken place in accordance with law and Rules, 1982 and the counting is done properly. It is submitted that therefore, it is not open for the petitioner now to make a grievance with respect to recounting more particularly when the said request was made belatedly and that such a request was not made at appropriate stage and appropriate time i.e. at the time of counting of the votes. [5.1] Shri Jayswal, learned AGP appearing on behalf of Election Officer has further submitted that as such there were 18 rounds of counting. It is submitted that upto 11th round as such the petitioner was ahead, however after the 12th round of counting, the petitioner started losing and final result was declared after 17 rounds of counting and at no point of time the petitioner requested for recounting of the votes after completion of the 17th round of counting. It is submitted that upto 11th round as such the petitioner was ahead, however after the 12th round of counting, the petitioner started losing and final result was declared after 17 rounds of counting and at no point of time the petitioner requested for recounting of the votes after completion of the 17th round of counting. [6.0] It is submitted by Shri Ashish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner never raised any objection either in writing or orally at the time of counting of votes and never requested for recounting. It is submitted that as per Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982, the prayer for recounting was required to be made in writing which the petitioner failed. It is submitted that even otherwise there are disputed question of fact and therefore, when the petitioner has the alternative statutory remedy by way of filing the election petition, it is requested to dismiss the present petition relegating the petitioner to file the election petition. [7.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 passed by respondent No.1 – Election Officer by which the application of the petitioner for recount of the votes has been rejected. At the outset it is required to be noted that voting took place on 21.10.2014 and the counting of the votes had taken place on 22.10.2014 as per the election programme. That the election was for 16 posts and from the proceedings and material on record it appears that there were 17 rounds of counting and as such the petitioner was ahead till 11th round of counting, however thereafter he started losing. It is an admitted position that at the time of counting no written request was made for recounting of the votes. Nothing is on record that any request was made by the petitioner for recounting of the votes. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner made oral request for recounting of the votes, however the same has been specifically denied by the election officer in his affidavit in reply. Nothing is on record that any request was made by the petitioner for recounting of the votes. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner made oral request for recounting of the votes, however the same has been specifically denied by the election officer in his affidavit in reply. It is required to be noted that as such there is no counter to the affidavit in reply. Therefore, as such there are disputed question of facts whether the petitioner made any oral request for recounting of the votes as alleged by him. [7.1] Even otherwise as per Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982, any request for recounting of the votes was required to be made in writing to the Returning Officer and that too stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. In the present case admittedly no such request in writing to the Returning Officer has been made by the petitioner requesting for recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted and that too stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. For the first time a request came to be made by the petitioner in writing on 30.10.2014. Thus, no application in writing was made by the petitioner requesting for recounting of the votes at appropriate time and appropriate stage and in writing. For the first time the application in writing was made by the petitioner after a period of almost 8 days after the declaration of the result and conclusion of the counting i.e. after 8 days from 22.10.2014. Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982 provides that after the completion of the counting, the Returning Officer shall record the result sheet in Form XIV, the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the same. It also further provides that after such announcement has been made, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. Thus, an application and/or request for recounting of all or any of the ballot papers already counted was required to be made after the announcement of the result by the election officer after completion of the counting and even such a request shall state the grounds on which the recount is demanded. Thus, an application and/or request for recounting of all or any of the ballot papers already counted was required to be made after the announcement of the result by the election officer after completion of the counting and even such a request shall state the grounds on which the recount is demanded. Thus, apart from the fact that the petitioner did not apply for recount of the votes at appropriate time and appropriate stage as required under Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982, even the application dated 30.10.2014 does not state the grounds on which the petitioner demanded such recounting. For the purpose of recounting of the votes, a candidate applying for recounting must apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted and that too stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. Merely making the application to recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted without stating the ground on which he demands such recount is not sufficient. Therefore, considering Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982, any request in writing to the Returning Officer which does not state the grounds on which he demands such recount deserves rejection. [7.2] As observed hereinabove though required as per Rule 61 of the Rules, 1982, the petitioner did not make any request for recount in writing at the time of counting, even in the subsequent application dated 30.10.2014 he has not stated any grounds on which he demanded the recount of all the votes. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arikala Narasa Reddy vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and Anr. reported in (2014)5 SCC 312 , recount should be confined only to number of ballot papers in respect of which irregularity/illegality is alleged in pleading and the allegations made in Recrimination Petition. It is also further observed in the aforesaid decision that the statutory requirements relating to election law have to be strictly adhered to for the reason that an election dispute is a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and thus, the doctrine of equity, etc. does not apply in such dispute. It is further observed that answer to every question raised in election dispute is to be solved within the four corners of the statute. does not apply in such dispute. It is further observed that answer to every question raised in election dispute is to be solved within the four corners of the statute. It is further observed that the result announced by the Returning Officer leads to formation of a government which requires the stability and continuity as an essential feature in election process and therefore, the counting of ballots is not to be interfered with frequently. In para 14 of the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that before the Court permits the recounting, the following conditions must be satisfied. i. The court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is established; ii. The material facts and full particulars have been pleaded stating the irregularities in counting of votes; iii. A roving and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the votes; iv. An opportunity should be given to file objection; and v. Secrecy of the ballot should be guarded. In para 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed and held as under: “15. This Court has consistently held that the court cannot go beyond the pleadings of the parties. The parties have to take proper pleadings and establish by adducing evidence that by a particular irregularity/illegality, the result of the election has been “materially affected”. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Thus, a decision of the case should not be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. In absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties, cannot be considered. It is also a settled legal proposition that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and parties are bound to take all necessary and material facts in support of the case set up by them. Pleadings ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised and they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence before the court for its consideration. The issues arise only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. Therefore, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings. The issues arise only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other party. Therefore, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings. The court cannot exercise discretion of ordering recounting of ballots just to enable the election petitioner to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish material for dealing the election to be void. The order of recounting can be passed only if the petitioner sets out his case with precision supported by averments of material facts. (Vide: Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1249 ; Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2117 ; and M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 341 ). Under the circumstances and even otherwise considering the fact that even in the application dated 30.10.2014, no grounds were raised and a general demand was made for recounting of all the votes, the request of the petitioner for recounting of all the votes has rightly been rejected. [7.3] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned decision of the Election Officer rejecting the belated application of the petitioner for recount of the votes is in any way illegal and/or arbitrary and/or malafide. At this stage it is required to be noted that it was suggested to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has an equal efficacious statutory remedy available by way of election petition, however the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the order on merits by submitting that the petitioner does not want to avail the alternative statutory remedy by way of election petition. Therefore, this Court has considered the present petition on merits challenging the impugned decision of the Election Officer rejecting the belated application of the petitioner for recounting. [8.0] In view of the above, present Special Civil Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Notice discharged.