JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. 1. Judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Rayagada in Election Appeal No. 1 of 2014 reversing the judgment of the learned Civil Judge - Junior Division), Gunupur in Election Petition No. 2 of 2012 and directing for recounting of voters, has been assailed in this writ petition. The present petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were candidates in the election for the post of Sarpanch of Pendili Gram Panchayat consisting of 11 wards in the district of Rayagada. The election was held on 11.02.2012. In the election finally the present petitioner was declared elected by a margin of one vote. The present opposite party No. 2 filed Election Petition No. 2 of 2012 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur, challenging the election of the present petitioner. It was averred that on counting of votes, it was found that the present opposite party No. 2 secured 1193 votes whereas the present petitioner secured 1182 votes and 71 votes were rejected, out of the total polling of 2446. As such the B.D.O.-cum-Election Officer, opposite party No. 1 declared on loudspeaker that opposite party No. 2 was elected by a margin of 11 votes. Soon after such declaration, it is alleged that the present petitioner prayed for recounting of votes which was allowed by the Election Officer. During the course of recounting, the present petitioner and his supporters, who belonged to the ruling party, created disturbances, as a result of which opposite party No. 2 and her agent were unable to sit at the time of recounting and were forced to go out of the room. At last, the Election Officer declared the petitioner elected by a margin of one vote by securing 1176 votes as against 1175 votes of opposite party No. 2 and 95 votes were rejected. It was alleged that during recounting opposite party No. 2 and her agent were not able to remain present due to disturbances and, therefore, the petitioner was declared elected by improper acceptance and rejection of votes at the time of such recounting. With such averments opposite party No. 2 prayed for setting aside the election of the petitioner with a further prayer for inspection of ballot and recounting by the court. 2. With such averments opposite party No. 2 prayed for setting aside the election of the petitioner with a further prayer for inspection of ballot and recounting by the court. 2. The present petitioner filed her objection stating that the allegations made by opposite party No. 2 (election petitioner) are false. It was specifically denied that any threat was given to opposite party No. 2 or her agent or that any disturbance was caused during the process of recounting. It was stated that the Election Officer recounted the votes in presence of the agent of both the parties as per law and that on declaration of result both the parties put their signatures in the result sheet. It was also stated that the election petitioner failed to make out a case for inspection and recounting of the ballots by the court since no details has been given as to how and how many ballots were improperly rejected and/or accepted. The Election Officer, opposite party No. 1 before the trial court also filed objection denying the allegations made by the election petitioner, stating specifically that the election and the recounting of votes were conducted properly. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed six issues and while answering issue Nos. 3 and 4, came to hold that the present petitioner and her supporters did not create any disturbance during the recounting process, and that there was no improper acceptance or rejection of votes during recounting. 4. The election petitioner after the closure of evidence filed a petition before the trial court for inspection and recounting of votes and the said petition was also rejected. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur by his judgment dated 09.12.2013 dismissed the election case. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur, the petitioner filed Election Appeal No. 1 of 2014 in the court of the learned District Judge, Rayagada. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur by his judgment dated 09.12.2013 dismissed the election case. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur, the petitioner filed Election Appeal No. 1 of 2014 in the court of the learned District Judge, Rayagada. By the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2015, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur and directed for recounting of votes by the trial court holding that the prayer for recounting was illegally allowed by Election Officer and that there was no material on record that the Election Officer decided for recounting by an order in writing mentioning the reasons therefore as required under Rule 51(2) of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Election Rules, 1965. It was further observed that when the recounting was challenged it was incumbent on the Tribunal to see if proper procedure was followed by the Election Officer in allowing the prayer for recounting and the recounting has been duly done. It was further observed that apart from the slender margin by which the writ petitioner won election, there was also disturbance by her supporters and that improper rejection or addition of votes in the instant case would have a significant bearing on the result of election. 6. In assailing the impugned appellate judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur has given good and cogent reasons to record the finding that there were no disturbance during recounting, but the appellate court without considering the materials on record and without setting aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal has reversed the Tribunal's Judgment. It is also submitted by him that the election petitioner did not challenge the action of the Election Officer in allowing recounting of votes, though her only challenge was that there was disturbance during the process of recounting for which the election-petitioner and her agent had to come out of the recounting room and were not present during the process of recounting, whereas the appellate court has made out a 3rd case saying that there was nothing on record to show that the prayer of the election petitioner for recounting was properly allowed in terms of the Rules. His further submission is that direction of the appellate court for inspection of ballots and recounting in court on the ground that there is a slender margin of one vote is contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in several decisions, particularly when no proper pleading and proof was there as to in what manner and how many ballots were improperly accepted or rejected. 7. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2-Election Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the margin of success of the returned candidate being very thin, i.e., only one vote, the appellate court has rightly directed for recounting of votes. It is also submitted by him that the election petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the process of recounting which would by itself include the question whether at the first place the order for recounting by the election officer was proper and legal. 8. It is trite law that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-counting, two basic requirements are to be satisfied, viz., (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting was founded and (ii) on the basis of 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. This has been so held in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwal: AIR 1964 SC 1249 . The principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the aforesaid case has been consistently followed from time to time without any change. It has been held by the apex Court in the decision reported in (2010) 1 SCC 466 : Kottinokkulam Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others in paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof as follows: "15. Before examining the merits of the issues raised on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re-count of ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Before examining the merits of the issues raised on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re-count of ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting of votes are made out. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballots and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases. 16. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements viz. (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of 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, and satisfied. Broadly stated, material facts are primary or basic facts which have to be pleaded by the election petition to prove his cause of action and by the defendant to prove his defence. But, as to what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down." It has been further held by the apex Court in the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram and others: (2000) 8 SCC 355 in paragraph-8 as follows: "8. In Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh it was held that the secrecy of the baliot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly and an order of re-count cannot be granted as a matter of course. Only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence, that the re-count can be ordered. Only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence, that the re-count can be ordered. When there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting, ordinarily, it would not be proper to order re-count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition." 9. In the case of P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Others (1989) 1 SCC 526 , the apex Court in paragraph-13 held as follows: "13. Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and re-count of votes is not to be derived from hindsight and by the result of the re-count of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of re-count of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek re-counting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless 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 being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes." 10. The contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that a margin of one vote in the instant case justified the order of recounting, cannot be accepted for the reason that in the case of Kottinokkulam Murali Krishna (supra) the apex Court has also ruled that a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not per se give rise to a presumption that there has been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. It is also profitable to quote a paragraph of the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (Supp.-I) OLR 520: Babaji Dhal v. Election Officer-cum-B.D.O., Pattamundai Block, Kendrapara and another. This Court in paragraph-14 thereof held as follows: "14. Mr. Amiya Kumar Moharity, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 with all persuasiveness relies on the case of R. Narayanan v. S. Semmallai, 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." The Hon'ble Supreme Court, though has made the above observation, in paragraph-25 of the judgment in the aforesaid case has observed thus: "Although no cast iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet from a beadroll of the decisions of this Court two broad guidelines are discernible, that the Court would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition and [ii] the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied" that the making of such as order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties." 11. In the instant case though prayer was made for inspection and recounting of the ballots by the Election Tribunal, the pleading justifying such recounting is wholly inadequate and the evidence in support thereof is nil. It is merely alleged in the election petition that some votes were improperly accepted or rejected by the Election Officer during the course of recounting, but there is no adequate and detail pleadings as to how many valid votes polled by the election petitioner were illegally rejected and how many invalid votes were counted as valid in favour of the returned candidate. There is also no evidence with regard to the nature, manner and number of votes accepted or rejected illegally, which vitiated the election result. 12. There is also no evidence with regard to the nature, manner and number of votes accepted or rejected illegally, which vitiated the election result. 12. The Election Tribunal (trial court) on consideration of the evidence has dearly found that with regard to the alleged disturbance in the process of recounting no objection at all was raised by the election petitioner or her agent before the Election Officer or before the Tahasildar, who was present there being deputed as a Magistrate to oversee the process of count and recount. The evidence of the agent (P.W. 2) also did not inspire confidence inasmuch as he belonged to a different Grama Panchayat and had also not raised any objection. Added to this; admittedly the final election sheet of recounting bears the signature of both the parties and the election-petitioner failed to explain under what circumstance she put her signature on the result sheet after recount by the Election Officer. The appellate court however has not discussed any evidence with respect to the allegations of creation of disturbance by the returned candidate and her supporters and has also not set aside the finding of the Tribunal that there was no proof of disturbance during the process of recounting by the Election Officer. The appellate court has apparently proceeded on the footing that the returned candidate and the Election Officer did not produce any document to show that the prayer of the returned candidate for recounting of votes by the Election Officer was allowed by a written order and properly in accordance with the requirement of the Rule. But it is seen from the pleading of the election petitioner that the order of the Election Officer allowing the prayer of the returned candidate for recounting of votes has not at all been challenged by the election petitioner. Therefore, evidently, the appellate court has proceeded on a ground, which was not pleaded and which was not an issue before the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the appellate court that recounting by the Election Officer was allowed improperly is wholly illegal and unsustainable. There was at all no ground for allowing the appeal by the appellate court by setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and directing for recounting of votes by the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the appellate court that recounting by the Election Officer was allowed improperly is wholly illegal and unsustainable. There was at all no ground for allowing the appeal by the appellate court by setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and directing for recounting of votes by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned appellate order is hereby quashed and that of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gunupur is restored and the writ petition is thus allowed. No costs.