ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition challenges an order passed by the Co-operative Court at Akola in a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and a revisional order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Nagpur confirming that order. 3. The dispute pertains to the election for members of Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 Co-operative Society which was challenged before the Court. The allegation of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were the original disputants before the Co-operative Court, was that some ballot papers were unauthorizedly marked and were accordingly to be treated as invalid and only valid votes could have been counted. The evidence led by the respondents before the Co-operative Court included oral evidence of respondent No. 1 (original disputant No. 1) in support of the factum of unauthorizedly marked ballot papers, personally seen by respondents at the time of counting. This was corroborated by a letter addressed to the Election Officer on the very date of the election by the respondents and others that whilst counting votes, some ballot papers were found to have been marked by a sketch pen (i.e. marked otherwise than by way of a cross mark of voting) and calling for invalidation of the ballot papers. 4. Based on this evidence, an application was made to the Co-operative Court for opening of the ballot box and counting of valid votes and exhibiting them in the dispute. By the impugned order, the Co-operative Court partly allowed that application by directing the Election Officer to open the ballot box in the presence of Advocates of parties and count the valid votes and submit a report to the Court. This order was challenged in revision preferred by the petitioners herein before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai at its Bench in Nagpur. The Appellate Court by its impugned order dated 31st August, 2017 dismissed the revision application holding that the observations of the trial Court about its satisfaction for the need to open the ballot box and count valid votes so as to resolve the controversy between the parties, were legal and proper. The Appellate Court considered the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Narayanan vs. S. Semmalai and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 206 and held that the order did not merit any interference. The Appellate Court considered the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Narayanan vs. S. Semmalai and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 206 and held that the order did not merit any interference. The Court also took into account the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sewak vs. Hussain Kamil, reported in (1964) 6 SCR 238 referring to the conditions required to be fulfilled before an order of inspection of ballot papers could be passed. The Appellate Court held that the facts of the present case satisfy the conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no adequate facts or material produced before the Court to enable the Court to record its prima facie satisfaction that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, opening of the ballot box and inspection of the ballot papers were necessary. Learned counsel submits that there is, accordingly, no case for ordering opening of the ballot box and checking the valid votes. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Naraynanan (supra), learned counsel submits that no order of inspection of ballot papers can be granted to support vague pleas unsupported by material facts or with a view to fish out evidence to support such pleas. Learned counsel submits that a mere allegation that the disputant suspects or believes that there was improper admission or reception of votes would not justify such order of inspection. Learned counsel also submits that there were CCTV cameras installed in the premises and for the purpose of its prima facie satisfaction the Court could have ordered production of recordings of these CCTV cameras. 6. The question of inspection of ballot papers with a view to check the validity of the election has been long settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sewak (supra). The law is stated by the Supreme Court in the following words : “But the Election Tribunal is not on that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. The law is stated by the Supreme Court in the following words : “But the Election Tribunal is not on that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper case where the interests of justice demand it, the Tribunal may call upon the Returning Officer to produce the ballot papers and may permit inspection by the parties before it of the ballot papers.” “An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course; having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled. (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of is case; and (ii) the Tribunal is 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. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection”. 7. In a nutshell, whenever in an election tribunal is called upon to decide whether the secrecy of the ballot papers could be dispensed with and inspection of ballot papers could be ordered with a view to ascertain the veracity of the allegations, it must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of ballot papers is necessary and this satisfaction must be based on the material placed before the Court and not just on vague averments of improper reception or rejection of votes. 8. Keeping this law in mind, let us now focus on the facts of the case. In the present case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original disputants) were present at the counting center as candidates. 8. Keeping this law in mind, let us now focus on the facts of the case. In the present case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original disputants) were present at the counting center as candidates. Whilst the votes were being counted, they noticed that some of the ballot papers did contain markings through sketch pens other than the cross marks of voting and that these markings rendered the ballot papers invalid. The respondents, accordingly, addressed a communication to the Election Officer on the same date and called for recounting of votes after rejecting the particular ballot papers as invalid. The requisition was not accepted by the Election Officer. Before the Co-operative Court, respondent No. 1 stepped into the witness box and gave oral evidence of unauthorized markings on ballot papers and application to the Election Officer for treating these ballot papers as invalid and recounting of votes. Respondent No. 1 was duly cross-examined by the opponents including the returned candidates. Based on this material before the Court, the Court observed that ballot papers were part of the subject matter of dispute and in the facts of the case, it was necessary to open the ballot box in the presence of Advocates of both sides for adjudication of the controversy in the present case. 9. On these facts, it is not possible to say that the impugned orders of the Courts below have been passed on vague allegations and not on material particulars or evidence or without any prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Courts for issuance of an order of opening up of the ballot papers. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sewak (supra), reiterated by the Court again in the case of N. Naraynanan (supra), is clearly satisfied in the present case. The disputants have, in the present case, not only pleaded material facts, but even produced evidence in support of these facts and the Courts were, in the premises, justified in granting an order of inspection of the ballot papers. 10. There is, accordingly, no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.