JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. R Dhar, learned senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 and Mr. N Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Considering the nature of the order passed and the submissions made by the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petitioner herein was elected as Ward Commissioner in Ward No.6 of Digboi Town Committee on 9.2.2015 as a candidate of the Indian National Congress defeating her nearest rival Smti. Kiran Saikia, a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party by margin of one vote. The said defeated candidate filed an Election Petition before the District Judge, Tinsukia praying for recount of votes and the same was numbered as TS (Election) No.33/2015. On being summoned, the returned candidate appeared and submitted written statement. While the matter was fixed for evidence, an Interlocutory Application was filed by the election petitioner asking for re-counting of votes. It is to be noted that the election petition itself was filed praying for recounting and thus interim prayer was same as that of the final prayer which could have been availed by the election petitioner only when she would have succeeded in the proceeding. But the learned Additional Judge (FTC) No.1 allowed the said Interlocutory Application and directed for re-counting vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.2016. Aggrieved, the return candidate has approached this Court challenging the order of the counting. 4. An order of re-counting cannot be passed as a matter of routine merely at the ipse dixit of the petitioner. In the case of Mahendra Pratap vs. Krishna Pal reported in (2003) 1 SCC 390 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in this regard. It is held therein that for warranting re-counting a foundation must be laid in the pleadings and it should be of such magnitude so as to materially affect the result of the election. In the subsequent judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases including Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 331 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided as follows;- “20. In the subsequent judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases including Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 6 SCC 331 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided as follows;- “20. It is well settled that an order of re-counting of votes can be passed when the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) A prima facie case; (ii) Pleading of materials facts stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) A roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made while directing re-counting of votes; and (iv) An objection to the said effect has been taken recourse to.” 5. In an identical condition, this Court had the occasion to consider the aspect of re-counting in the case of Smti. Jahanara Begum vs. State of Assam and others vide WP(C) 4825/2013. In that case, this Court had made the following observations: “13. It is thus clear that in appropriate case an election tribunal can definitely issue direction for inspection of ballot boxes and to recount the ballots. But in dealing with such question the importance of secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored and it is always to be borne in mind that adequate safeguard for examination of the validity or invalidity of the votes and for proper counting has to be maintained. Considering the requirements of justice, care must be taken to see that election petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the election of the returned candidate is void. For that, adequate statement of materials facts has to be made in the election petition and evidence is to be led on the basis of such pleadings. If upon such material facts and supporting evidence the tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide a dispute and to do complete justice between the parties recounting is necessary only at that event an order for recounting can be made. 14. The standard for recounting under the election law in England is also of the same nature. Law of recounting has been dealt with in the Halsbury's laws of England (3rd Edition Vol.14 page 310) at Para 559. 14. The standard for recounting under the election law in England is also of the same nature. Law of recounting has been dealt with in the Halsbury's laws of England (3rd Edition Vol.14 page 310) at Para 559. It is observed in the said paragraph on the basis of decision in Berwick case (1880) that a recount is not ordered as of right, but on evidence of good grounds believing that there has been a mistake on the part of the returning officer. This paragraph further requires that the petition for recount must contain good grounds. The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are also couched in the same scheme.” 6. In the case in hand, when an election petition is pending for re-counting, there could not have been interim order allowing re-counting. An order of re-counting can be passed only after prima facie has been pleaded and proved by the election petitioner as to improper acceptance of invalid vote or refusal to accept valid vote. It appears that in the case in hand, evidence is yet to be adduced by the parties and no occasion has arisen for the Court to hold a view that a case for re-counting has been made out. Election law has to be strictly construed and mandate of people cannot be casually or mechanically nullified. 7. In view of what has been sated above in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 17.9.2016 is contrary to the basic principles of election jurisprudence and accordingly, it warrants interference. 8. The writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 17.9.2016 is hereby set aside. The learned District Judge, to whose Court the election petition is pending, shall take up the matter expeditiously on day to day basis and shall dispose of the same after affording adequate opportunity of adducing evidence to both the sides.