ORDER : 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order of Election Tribunal dated 14.9.2016 Annexure P/10 whereby the Tribunal directed for recounting of votes and as a consequence thereof the respondent No.1 secured more votes than the petitioner and was declared elected. The admitted facts between the parties are that this Court by order dated 14.9.2016 did not grant stay on the operation of impugned order but made it clear that decision of recounting would be subject to final outcome of this petition. The petitioner and other private respondents were candidates for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nayagaon. The petitioner was elected by a margin of one vote. The said election of petitioner was called in question by respondent No.1 by filing Election Petition under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Adhiniyam’) read with M.P. Panchayat (Nirvachan Arjia, Bhrastachar Aur Sadasyta Ke Liye Nirharta) Niyam, 1995 (‘Disqualification Rules, 1995). 2. In the said Election Petition, reliance is placed by respondent No.1 on the application dated 27.2.2015 Annexure P/2. By this application, the election petitioner allegedly raised his objection on the counting and prayed for recounting. 3. After completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Election Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 5.9.2016 Annexure P/4 and directed for recounting. 4. Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed this order by contending that (a) there is no pleading how many votes allegedly cast in favour of respondent No.1 were counted in favour of petitioner; (b) there exists no foundation how votes cast in favour of respondent No.1 were counted in favour of the petitioner; (c) the nature of alleged manipulation in relation to form 17 is not established; (d) there are no material facts and particulars in the election petition on the strength of which recount could have been ordered; (e) no issue regarding recount has been framed by the Tribunal; (f) the Tribunal has directed recounting on the basis of certain considerations which were beyond the pleadings and proof. In addition, it is submitted that Rule 80 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (‘Nirvachan Niyam, 1995) is a complete Code in itself for the purpose of recounting of votes. In addition, it is submitted that Rule 80 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (‘Nirvachan Niyam, 1995) is a complete Code in itself for the purpose of recounting of votes. As per pleading of respondent No.1 himself, it is clear that no objection was raised nor any demand was raised within stipulated time demanding such recount. A conjoint reading of pleadings in the election petition and evidence of election petitioners shows that he could not establish about any illegality which warrants a direction of recounting. In support of his aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on AIR 1989 SC 640 (P.K.K. Shamsudeen vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others), AIR 1993 SC 367 (Satyanarain Dudhani vs. Uday Kumar Singh and others), AIR 1997 SC 3072 (Smt. Ram Rati vs. Saroj Devi and others), AIR 2000 SC 153 (T.H. Musthaffa vs. M.P. Varghese and others) and the order passed by this Court in WP No.21225/2016 (Balwan Singh vs. State of M.P. ande others) in Balwan Singh vs. State of M.P.. He also placed reliance on 2013 (3) ILR MP 1793 (Ganesh Ram Gayatri vs. Bagdiram and others). 5. Per contra, Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and urged that in the original round of counting petitioner succeeded by only one vote. Thus, by following the judgment of this Court in 2005 (4) MPHT 74 (Ram Rati vs. Sub Divisional Officer and others), Tribunal has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order. It needs no interference by this Court. He submits that there are sufficient material facts and particulars pleaded by election petitioner supported by adequate evidence. Thus, no case for interference is made out by the election petitioner. 6. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is profitable to summarize and catalog the circumstance under which recount could be ordered. The Apex Court way back in Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govind, (1976) 1 SCC 687 opined that the election petition must contain the adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity and illegality in counting are founded. On the basis of evidence adduced, such illegality must be established. The Apex Court way back in Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govind, (1976) 1 SCC 687 opined that the election petition must contain the adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity and illegality in counting are founded. On the basis of evidence adduced, such illegality must be established. The Court trying the petition must be satisfied that making of such an order of recount is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties. The Apex Court in Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria vs. Ram Gopal Singh, (1976) 1 SCC 43 followed the said principle. In Chanda Singh vs. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma, (1975) 4 SCC 393 , the Apex Court held that the democracy runs on the smooth wheels of periodic and pure elections. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. Recount of ballot cannot be interfered too frequently and on flippant accounts. The secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in democratic process. In Beliram Bhalaik vs. Jain Beharilal Kachi, (1975) 4 SCC 417 , the Apex Court held that a whimsical and bald statement of the candidate that he is not satisfied with the counting will not tantamount to a statement of the “grounds” within the meaning of relevant rules. A Division Bench of this Court in Ganesh Ram Gayari vs. Bagdiram and others, 2013 (2) MPLJ 447 followed the said principle. In Hanumant Singh vs. State of M.P., 2012 (3) MPLJ 191 , this Court considered the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 367 , Shri Satyananrain Dudhani vs. Uday Kumar Singh and others and opined that secrecy of ballot cannot be lightly tinkered. In a democratic set up, secrecy of ballot is of utmost importance and in absence of very specific pleadings of material facts and particulars supported by contemporaneous evidence, neither election can be quashed nor recount can be ordered. This Court considered the judgment of Mahender Pratap vs. Kishan Pal and others, (2003) 1 SCC 390 in which it was held that the onus of proof on the basis of proper pleading is on the election petitioner. It is further held that the degree of proof is of very high standard for the purpose of annulling an election or for issuing direction for recounting. 9. It is further held that the degree of proof is of very high standard for the purpose of annulling an election or for issuing direction for recounting. 9. The application allegedly preferred by respondent No.1 claiming recount dated 27.2.2015 Annexure P/2 reads as under:- ^^le{k Jheku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh egksn; erx.kuk dsUæ u;k xkao }kjk fjVfuZx vkfQlj tuin iapk;r iVsjkA egkuqHkko] fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 26-2-2015 dh gqbZ erx.kuk esa gsjk&Qsjh gqbZ gSA esjs er i= vU; ÁR;k'kh ds er esa Mky fn;s x, gSa rFkk esjs er fjtsDV fd, x, gSaA eSa erx.kuk ls lger ugha gwaA vr% Jheku egksn; ls ÁkFkZuk gS dh erksa dh iqu% x.kuk djus dh d`ik djsaA ÁkFkhZ Áfrfyfi&Jheku ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh neksgA** [Emphasis Supplied] In the election petition, the petitioner averred that ballot boxes brought for counting were not intact and their seals were broken. The counting agent of election petitioner raised objection about the said ballot boxes but disallowing his application, the ballot boxes were opened and ballots were taken out. The whole action is done by the officers in order to support the present petitioner. The votes cast in favour of election petitioner were added in favour of present petitioner. Election petitioner’s valid votes were declared invalid. Since margin of difference in obtaining votes was only one, application for recounting was given but said application was not received by the concerned officer. Repeated requests made in this regard by counting agent of election petitioner were disallowed. It is further averred that in the result sheet, there is an overwriting and no explanation in this regard is given by the Presiding Officer. There were four votes which contained seal in favour of election petitioner but they were illegally declared as invalid. The election petitioner preferred application for recount on 27.2.2015 stating that there exists an irregularity in counting and the same was brought to the notice of District Election Officer, Damoh but no interference was made by the said authority. 10. The election petitioner entered the witness box before the Tribunal and stated that although he had seen that there exists no seal on certain ballot boxes, he did not prefer any written application in this regard to Presiding Officer or to Returning Officer. He could not tell the name of the Returning Officer. 10. The election petitioner entered the witness box before the Tribunal and stated that although he had seen that there exists no seal on certain ballot boxes, he did not prefer any written application in this regard to Presiding Officer or to Returning Officer. He could not tell the name of the Returning Officer. He in his deposition admitted that when his oral request/objection was not considered, he did not prefer any application containing this objection. He candidly amitted that in Exhibit P/7 (Annexure P/2) dated 27.2.2015, he did not mention about the said alleged irregularities i.e. seal was broken in polling station No.50. On a specific question asked to him during cross-examination, he admitted that he had not mentioned the said objection in Exhibit P/7 because he was not aware about it. He further admitted that on 26.2.2015 he did not prefer any application/complaint before any authority by post or otherwise. 11. Furthermore, the election petitioner deposed that he cannot state how many votes were cancelled, his polling agent Pappu @ Bharat was present during counting but he did not file any written objection regarding counting. His statement is clear wherein he deposed that he has neither written nor directed the author of Exhibit P/7 to write that earlier this application was handed over to the officers but they did not receive it. The election petitioner clearly stated that in the application Exh. P/7 he has not stated that his votes were added in favour of present petitioner. In no uncertain terms, it is deposed that while writing Exhibit P/7 he was not aware about cast of votes in his favour were used for present petitioner. 12. The learned Tribunal framed 12 issues and came to hold that in Polling Station No.49, the proof of votes under the head “NOTA” is not mentioned. In lieu of “NOTA” votes, cancelled votes to the tune of 33 are shown. There exists an overwriting in Polling Station No.50 in relation to “NOTA” votes. The overwriting does not contain seal of Presiding Officer. Thus, election process is clearly irregular and polluted. The election petitioner has produced form 17 which shows that the margin of victory was by one vote. Thus, as per the judgment of this Court in Ramrati (Supra), it is a fit case for recounting. 13. The overwriting does not contain seal of Presiding Officer. Thus, election process is clearly irregular and polluted. The election petitioner has produced form 17 which shows that the margin of victory was by one vote. Thus, as per the judgment of this Court in Ramrati (Supra), it is a fit case for recounting. 13. Before examining this on the anvil of settled principles mentioned herein above, it is apposite to quote Rule 80 of Nirvachan Niyam, 1995- “80. Recount of votes. -(1) Alter an announcement has been made by the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, of the total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of Rule 77, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or his counting agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer or such officer authorised by him for a recount of all or any of the votes already counted, stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) On such an application being made the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in to if it appears lo him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor. (4) If the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application either in whole or in part, he shall- (a) count the ballot papers again in accordance with his decision; (b) amend the “result sheet to the extent necessary after such recount; and (c) announce the amendment so made by him. (5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (2) of Rule 77 or sub-rule (4), the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall complete and sign the result sheet and no application for a recount shall be entertained thereafter : Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (1). (6) The counted ballot papers shall be bundled and kept in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 77. (7) Result sheets in Forms 16, 17, 18 and 19 for Panch, Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat and Member of Zila Panchayat respectively, prepared by such other officers as are authorised by the Returning Officer, shall be submitted by them, in separate envelops to the Returning Officer for compilation and tabulation of votes polled by each candidate. (8) The Returning Officer on receipt of result sheets under sub-rule (7) shall enter of cause to be entered the total number of votes polled by each candidate contesting for a scat of Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat or Member of Zila Panchayat at each polling station of the concerned constituency in subsequent part or parts of Form 17, 18 and 19 respectively and complete and sign the result sheet.” 14. The Apex Court in AIR 1997 SC 3072 (Smt. Ramrati vs. Saroj Devi) considered Rule 76 of the Election Rules of 1995 and opined that if application is not preferred at appropriate time in writing by giving reasons for recounting, the Tribunal or the Court is not empowered to direct recounting even after recording evidence and consideration of alleged irregularity in counting. The condition precedent is that an application in writing should be made and the Returning Officer should pass an order with reasons in support thereto either to recall the order or otherwise in writing. The fact that officer has not passed any order in writing would indicate that respondent had not made any application. In that case, the secrecy of ballot should be maintained and prayer for recounting must be treated to be an afterthought. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Devi (supra). It is seen that the said judgment was overrulled by Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment which can be seen from the paragraphs below. I deem it proper to express extreme displeasure of this Court and deprecate the practice of citing overrulled judgment. The Apex Court in 2004 (7) SCC 19 , [State of Orissa vs. Nalinikanta Muduli] & 2001 (2) SCC 221 , [D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra] deprecated such practice and opined that this practice shows falling standards of professional conduct. 15. The Apex Court in 2004 (7) SCC 19 , [State of Orissa vs. Nalinikanta Muduli] & 2001 (2) SCC 221 , [D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra] deprecated such practice and opined that this practice shows falling standards of professional conduct. 15. The judgment of Supreme Court in Saroj Devi (supra) was considered in 2002 AIR SCW 4803, [Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi & others]. This Court considered the judgment of Saroj Devi & Sohan Lal (supra) in 2003 (4) MPLJ 339 , [Gokul Prasad Patel vs. Specified Officer/SDO & others] and opined as under: “7. The Supreme Court recently in Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi, 2002 AIR SCW 4803, has overruled its decision in Ram Rati v. Saroj Devi, (1997) 6 SCC 66 : AIR 1997 SC 3072 , wherein rule 76 of the M.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, came for consideration, which is pari material to Rule 80 of M.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1995. On consideration of Rule 80, the Apex Court has held that it is not necessary to file application seeking recount before Presiding Officer and Court or Tribunal can see even if application was not filed praying for recount; whether counting was held properly or not and in appropriate case can order recount. The Apex Court has laid down: “10. Thus, under sub-rule (5) once the result sheet is completed and signed, no application for recount can be entertained. 11. Rule 81 also provides that after the counting of the votes, the Returning Officer shall prepare a return and declare the candidate who has the largest number of votes to have been elected. Under Rule 83, a certificate is to be granted to the returned candidate who has been declared elected. Under Rule 84 after the certificate has been granted, the election officer or the Returning Officer can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. 12. Thus after declaration of results, the Returning Officer has no power either to direct recount or to change the results of the election. Once the result is declared, the only remedy of an aggrieved party is an Election petition under section 122. 13. In this case, as stated above, the Appellant had been orally told that he had won. He only came to know that respondent No. 1 had been declared elected after the result was declared. At this stage, he could not have approached the Returning Officer for recount. 13. In this case, as stated above, the Appellant had been orally told that he had won. He only came to know that respondent No. 1 had been declared elected after the result was declared. At this stage, he could not have approached the Returning Officer for recount. The only remedy, therefore, available to the Appellant was to file an Election petition. 14. In view of section 122 and the rules, we are unable to agree with the ratio laid down in Ram Rati's case. It is not correct to hold that, in an election petition, after the declaration of the result, the Court or Tribunal cannot direct recounting of votes unless the party has first applied in writing for recounting of votes. There is no prohibition in the Act or under the Rules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal to direct a recounting of the votes. Even otherwise a party may not know that the recounting is necessary till after result is declared. At this stage, it would not be possible for him to apply for recounting to the Returning Officer. His only remedy would be to file an Election Petition under section 122. In such a case, the Court or the Tribunal is bound to consider the plea and where case is made out, it may direct recount depending upon the evidence led by the parties. In the present case, there was obvious error in declaring the result. We, therefore, held that the ratio laid down in Ram Rati's case is not correct.” [Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of aforesaid principle of laid down in Gokul Prasad Patel (supra) I am unable to hold that if an application seeking recounting was not preferred on the date of counting, the Tribunal/Court has no jurisdiction/authority to direct recounting. This point raised by petitioner must fail. 17. Now, the spinal question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ordering recounting. Exhibit P/2 shows that there is no assertion in the document that the valid votes of election petitioner were added in favour of present petitioner. A bald statement is made that election petitioner’s votes were added in the votes of other candidates and his votes are rejected. In whose favour his votes were used is not averred or established. In T.H. Musthaffa (supra) the Apex Court opined as under: “10. A bald statement is made that election petitioner’s votes were added in the votes of other candidates and his votes are rejected. In whose favour his votes were used is not averred or established. In T.H. Musthaffa (supra) the Apex Court opined as under: “10. The pleading raised in the case does not refer to either Rule 39 or Rule 56 of the rules much less to the “Pamphlet Showing Illustrative Cases of Valid and Invalid Postal and Ordinary Ballot Papers” issued by the Election Commission of India, nor are any specific allegations found in the case. The allegation made in the course of the petition is that there is wrong acceptance of invalid votes polled for Respondent 1. It is not made clear as to how many votes are liable to be rejected for using wrong instrument by the voters for expressing their preference. There is no further indication as to how many of such votes had been polled in favour of Respondent 1 so as to materially affect the result of the election. In the absence of such plea the learned Judge could not have granted the relief of re-count. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the pleadings are insufficient to order re-count is perfectly in order. So far as the evidence that had been adduced in the case is concerned, it need not have been looked at by the learned Judge in the absence of appropriate pleadings in that regard. ….” [Emphasis Supplied] 18. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra) it was poignantly held as under: “11. ….. 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. 13. 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. 13. Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hindsight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount 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 recounting 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 recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes. ” [Emphasis Supplied] 19. In Satyanarain Dudhani (supra) it was poignantly held as under: “10. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and 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 recount can be ordered. 11. As stated above only a three line objection application was filed before the Returning Officer. No objection whatsoever was raised during the counting and no irregularity or illegality was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. Even the material in the election petition has been pleaded with the object of having a fishing enquiry and does not inspire confidence.” [Emphasis Supplied] 20. In WP-21225-2016, [Balwan Singh vs. State of MP & others] Kasrekar, J. opined as under: “18. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the power for recounting of votes cannot be delegated. The burden of proof lies on the election petitioner. While in the present case, the Election Tribunal has placed burden on the petitioner, herein, which is contrary to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hanumant Singh (supra) as well as Ganesh Ram Gyari (supra) in which this Court has held that recounting of votes should not have been allowed as a routine unless there is circumstances which require for recounting. Respondent No.5, in his election petition, has raised a dispute in respect of two votes only in para-6 of the election petition. Respondent No.5 has pleaded only for two votes and relief has already been sought in respect of two votes. However, while passing the impugned order, the Election Tribunal has gone beyond the pleadings and ordered for recounting for entire votes, although, pleadings, evidence and prayer was only for two votes. Respondent No.5 has pleaded only for two votes and relief has already been sought in respect of two votes. However, while passing the impugned order, the Election Tribunal has gone beyond the pleadings and ordered for recounting for entire votes, although, pleadings, evidence and prayer was only for two votes. It is also to be noted that respondent No.5, in his affidavit in para-3 of the cross-examination, has admitted that no objection has been filed filed during counting as required under Rule 80. Thus, on the basis of overall evidence produced by all the parties, the dispute, in the present case, is only with regard to two votes, however, the Election Tribunal has gone beyond the pleadings and passed the order for recounting of the entire votes which is illegal.” [Emphasis Supplied] 21. As noticed, the victory of present petitioner was with a wafer thin majority of one vote. However, this cannot be a ground to order recounting. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2013 (MP) 1793, [Ganesh Ram Gayari vs. Bagdiram & ors]. After following the judgment of Supreme Court in PKK Shamsudeen (supra) it was made absolutely clear that result of recounting cannot be a ground to justify the order. 22. This Court in Rani Maraskole vs. State of M.P., 2016 (2) MPLJ 457 opined that low margin of votes alone cannot be a ground for setting aside election or recounting of votes. In absence of specific pleading regarding irregularity and in absence of adequate evidence, recounting order cannot sustained judicial scrutiny. 23. In the instant case, as noticed, the petitioner’s application (Annexure-P/2) seeking recounting is an ambiguous application which does not contain specific allegation, factual details and nature of irregularity. The statement of petitioner before the Tribunal clearly shows that he did not state that his votes were added in favour of present petitioner. The Tribunal has ordered for recount on the basis of alleged irregularity in not showing the correct number/portion of “NOTA” votes. This alleged irregularity was neither pleaded nor proved by the election petitioner. In view of aforesaid judgments, the principle of law is clear that election Tribunal is not required to conduct a roving inquiry to ascertain irregularities in the matter of counting. Interference can be made on the basis of strong pleading supported by solid evidence. This alleged irregularity was neither pleaded nor proved by the election petitioner. In view of aforesaid judgments, the principle of law is clear that election Tribunal is not required to conduct a roving inquiry to ascertain irregularities in the matter of counting. Interference can be made on the basis of strong pleading supported by solid evidence. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of pleadings and evidence and directed for recounting on the basis of roving inquiry which is impressible. The reliance on the judgment of Ramrati (supra) is also misconceived because way back in 1980 (2) SCC 537 , [R. Narayanan vs. S. Semmalai & others], it was held that a small majority of votes cannot be a ground for ordering recounting. This principle is followed by this Court in Rani Maraskole (supra). In view of aforesaid, it is clear that election petitioner has failed to establish the grounds for recounting by specific pleading of material evidence and particulars supported by contemporaneous evidence. Thus, impugned order cannot sustained judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, the impugned order of Tribunal dated 05.09.2016 (Annexure-P/4) and consequential order electing the respondent No.1 are set aside. Petition is allowed. No cost.