JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. P K Roy, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that she submitted her candidature before the District Returning Officer, Karimganj for the post of Ward Commissioner of Ward No. 4, Jodutilla Constituency of No. 93, Baghbari Gaon Panchayat, within the Area of No. 20 Kaliganj ZPC in the Assam Panchayat Election of the year 2013 as a candidate nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP). 3. The election was held on 12.02.2013 and the total number of votes that was polled were 335 votes for the Ward No. 4 of the Jadutilla Constituency. 4. The votes were counted on 15.02.2013 and in the result that was declared, the petitioner secured the highest votes, i.e., 90 votes and the respondent No. 4 secured 87 votes. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 secured 75 and 66 votes respectively. 5. The petitioner was thus declared to be elected and thereafter, she participated in the workshop conducted for the elected representatives of the Panchayat from 03.10.2013 to 07.10.2013 and since then the petitioner is working as a member of the said Gaon Panchayat. 6. The respondent No. 4, however, being aggrieved with the election of the petitioner filed Misc. (Election) Case No. 44/2013 before the Panchayat Election Tribunal, Karimganj under the provisions of Sections 129(b) and Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereafter the Panchayat Act, for short). 7. According to the respondent No. 4, in the election that was held on 12.02.2013, 317 numbers of votes were cast with the ballot serial from 1 to 317. The counting was held on 15.02.2013, wherein, it was found that 330 votes were cast instead of 317 votes. After the counting, it was found that the respondent No. 4 secured 87 votes, while the petitioner secured only 85 votes. The respondent No. 4, therefore, won by 2 votes and the results were published and reported in the local dailies. 8. After the counting, it was found that the respondent No. 4 secured 87 votes, while the petitioner secured only 85 votes. The respondent No. 4, therefore, won by 2 votes and the results were published and reported in the local dailies. 8. However, the respondent No. 4, subsequently collected a Xerox copy of the election result sheet, wherein, it was indicated that the total number of votes that was cast was 335 votes instead of 330 or 317 votes. Furthermore, the writ petitioner was shown to have secured 90 votes instead of 85 votes. She, therefore, contended that the election result sheet was illegally prepared and in collusion with the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 sought for a direction for recounting of all the votes. 9. Against the election petition, the writ petitioner filed her written objection, wherein, she contended inter-alia that there was nothing illegal about the total number of votes that was cast in the election showing 335 votes and the numbers of votes secured by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 were also correctly reflected in the result sheet. 10. Consequently, the election petition was disposed of by the District Judge, Karimganj vide order dated 18.03.2014, whereby, it was held that it was a fit case for recounting the votes. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj was asked to send the ballot papers under sealed trunk to facilitate recounting of the votes. 11. The Civil Judge, Karimganj, thereafter upon being assigned to conduct the recounting of the votes, completed the process of recounting and vide the statement prepared after the recounting, the petitioner was found to have secured 87 votes while the respondent No. 4 was found to have secured 84 votes. 12. Still not being satisfied with the recounting of votes, the respondent No. 4 again submitted her petition before the Panchayat Election Tribunal, Karimganj contending inter-alia that she in fact secured the highest votes, i.e., 84 votes while the petitioner secured 82 votes. Further, she contended that to her surprise there was an envelope containing 5 ballot papers which did not have any identity marks and they were all with the tick marks by the same hand and ink against the lotus symbol. Further, she contended that to her surprise there was an envelope containing 5 ballot papers which did not have any identity marks and they were all with the tick marks by the same hand and ink against the lotus symbol. She also contended that under the Ward No. 4, there were only 3 government employees out of which one of them did not cast the postal vote. Therefore, the 5 ballot papers contained in the envelope were highly suspicious and illegal. Therefore, the authority concerned should not have accounted the said 5 votes to declare the election result. 13. In response to the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner submitted her written objection contending inter-alia that the respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to challenge the postal ballots since the same were counted and thereafter, recounted after following all the formalities as per law. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the complaint of the respondent No. 4 be rejected and dismissed. 14. However, the Panchayat Election Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2014 accepted the allegation raised by the respondent No. 4 and directed that the counter-folio of the postal ballots with details of the name and address of the employees who had cast the postal ballot be requisitioned for examination. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is here before this court. 15. Appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned counsel, Mr. P K Roy, submits that the petitioner has nothing to say as regards to the recounting of the votes, whereby, the learned Civil Judge found that the petitioner secured 87 votes while the respondent No. 4 secured 84 votes. He, however, submits that the Panchayat Election Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the second complaint submitted by the respondent No. 4 and as a result by passing the impugned order dated 05.07.2014. The learned counsel submits that whatever grievances the respondent No. 4 had in the election process, had already been addressed by the Tribunal by passing the order dated 18.03.2014. The grievances and the allegations raised by the respondent No. 4 has already been addressed and dispelled by the Tribunal and therefore, the respondent No. 4 even after that cannot be permitted to insist for a roving enquiry. The grievances and the allegations raised by the respondent No. 4 has already been addressed and dispelled by the Tribunal and therefore, the respondent No. 4 even after that cannot be permitted to insist for a roving enquiry. He submits that such insistence will be against the principle of the preservation of secrecy of ballots which otherwise is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is a prima-facie genuine need for it. He further submits that the justification for an order of recount of votes in fact should be provided by the material placed by the election petitioner on the very threshold and not after a recount. He, thus, submits that an order for recounting of votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes. 16. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Others reported in (1989) 1 SCC 526 . 17. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. S.P. Choudhury by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the said respondents submits that the counting of the votes was rightly done in terms of the Assam Panchayat (Constituency) Rules, 1995 by recounting all the valid votes and including the postal ballots, the results of the Panchayat election was declared. He therefore, submits that under such circumstances, the interference of this Court is not called for. 18. The respondent No. 4 represented by Mr. S Dey, on the other hand submits that there were serious irregularities committed in the counting of the postal ballots inasmuch as there were only 3 government servants under the Ward No. 4 and in fact one of them was engaged in the polling process and therefore there was no question of their being 5 postal ballots to be counted for in the total number of votes counted, i.e., 335 votes. He further submits that the Election Tribunal had rightly passed the order dated 05.07.2014 and in view of the nature of allegations, he submits that an endeavor should be made to find out the truth. He further submits that the Election Tribunal had rightly passed the order dated 05.07.2014 and in view of the nature of allegations, he submits that an endeavor should be made to find out the truth. He also submits that the submission made by the counsel for the writ petitioner is misplaced with regard to the preservation of the secrecy of the ballots as the sacrosanct principle. He submits that the counsel for the writ petitioner has gone beyond these pleadings and therefore any submission made without such pleadings in the petition should not be considered by this Court. 19. In order to substantiate his submission, Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 relies upon the decision of the Apex court rendered in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 and the case of Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited reported in 2000 2 SCC 223 . 20. I have considered the submissions advanced by the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. Since the grievances of the writ petitioner is confined only to the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 passed in Misc. (Election) Case No. 44/2013, travelling beyond the said grievance may not be necessary. It is not in dispute that the Panchayat Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an election petition arising out of the Panchayat Election in terms of the Assam Panchayat Act and Rules. However, the fact remains that whether in the given facts and circumstances it would be necessary for the election Tribunal to call for the counter-folio of the postal ballots along with the names and addresses and particulars of the person who had cast the postal ballots on yet another complaint after the votes have been recounted. 21. As held by the Apex Court in the case of P.K.K. Shamsudeen (Supra), duty is cast upon the election petitioner to justify that an examination of the ballot papers and recounting of votes would be essential. Such justification at the same time has to be established at the threshold and not after the recounting of votes. It can be seen that the respondent No. 4 in his election petition filed at the first instance relied upon the newspaper reports and a Xerox copy of the result sheet which he stated that was acquired by him subsequently. Such justification at the same time has to be established at the threshold and not after the recounting of votes. It can be seen that the respondent No. 4 in his election petition filed at the first instance relied upon the newspaper reports and a Xerox copy of the result sheet which he stated that was acquired by him subsequently. The respondent No. 4 did not have any grievance as regards to the postal ballots and after the recount, the respondent No. 4 admittedly has realized that the postal ballots recounted by the Civil Judge as well as by the Returning Officer when the votes were counted could not be acted upon as the same were doubtful. It can be seen that the objection raised by the respondent No. 4 are not based on any materials that can be relied upon at the face of it. Besides these, the preservation of secrecy of ballots being the underlying principles in an election process in a democratic setup, the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 cannot be justified under the given facts and circumstances. It is also noticed that the term of the members of the Gaon Panchayat is subsisting pursuant to the declaration of the results in the month of February, 2013. I, therefore, do not find any reason as to why the postal ballots sought to be requisitioned and examined by the Election Tribunal should be allowed to proceed any further and more further when recounting of the votes that was directed vide order dated 18.03.2014 has already been carried out. 22. In the result the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 passed by the learned Panchayat Election Tribunal, Karimganj in Misc. (Election) Case No. 44/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. The writ petition is thus allowed by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.