JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 2. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner being the election petitioner before the Election Tribunal, has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jodhpur District-cum-Election Tribunal in Election Petition No.58/2015 whereby, the election petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 2015 to question election of the respondent No.4 Ramniwas Punia on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paldi Siddha was dismissed. 3. The sole ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the election of the respondent before the Tribunal was that gross illegalities and irregularities were committed by the returning officer in the manner of counting the votes and as such, the Election Tribunal should direct recounting thereof. 4. On appreciating the arguments advanced at bar and on going through the impugned judgment and other documents placed on record, it is manifest that while the counting process was underway, no protest whatsoever was rased by the petitioner regarding the manner of counting of the votes. Even in the belated applications (Annexure-5 and 6), which the petitioner forwarded to the Returning Officer through registered A.D. Post, no reasons have been assigned as to why the counting of votes was not done in satisfactory manner as per the petitioner. Significantly, no particular irregularity was pointed out in these letters. Admittedly, the petitioner and his counting agents were present in the counting hall when the counting process was underway. At no point of time during the counting process, did either the petitioner or his agents raise any objection regarding improper rejection of petitioner's votes or improper acceptance of the votes cast in favour of the respondent No.4. If any doubt is created on any particular ballot during the counting process then, the serial number of ballot papers and irregularity noticed therein have to be noted and protest made in relation thereto immediately before the Returning Officer. On going through these two applications (Annexure-5 and 6) submitted by the petitioner after counting of the votes had been completed and so also the pleadings of the election petition, it is manifest that not even a single instance of irregular rejection or acceptance of the votes has been pointed out therein. On going through these two applications (Annexure-5 and 6) submitted by the petitioner after counting of the votes had been completed and so also the pleadings of the election petition, it is manifest that not even a single instance of irregular rejection or acceptance of the votes has been pointed out therein. 5. Rule 49 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 deals with the counting of votes which reads as below: "49. Counting of votes.- (1) The counting of votes shall commence on such date and at such time and place as the Returning Officer may appoint. (2) Such date, time and place shall be communicated to all the candidates. (3) Votes shall be counted by or under the supervision of the Returning Officer and each candidate shall have a right to be present at the time of counting. (4) No other person shall be allowed to be present at the counting of votes except Polling and Assistant Polling Officers and such other persons as the Returning Officer may permit to assist him in the task. (5) The Returning Officer shall allow each candidate a reasonable opportunity to inspect, without handling, the ballot papers which he considers to be liable to rejection. (6) Any candidate present at the counting may, at any time during the counting of votes, request the Returning Officer in writing, to recount the ballot papers relating to the ward and the Returning Officer may for reasons to be recorded either reject the request or order recounting of votes. (7) The Returning Officer may, in his discretion recount the ballot papers of all or any of the candidates once or more than once, if he is not satisfied as to the accuracy of the immediately preceding count. (8) Every ballot paper which is not rejected under rule 50 shall be deemed to be valid and shall be counted as one valid vote. (9) The Returning Officer count all valid votes given to such candidate and make candidate wise packets of counted ballot papers and those of rejected ballot papers and then all such packets shall be sealed properly." 6. As per sub-Rule 5, every candidate at the election has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot papers which are considered liable to rejection. As per sub-Rule 5, every candidate at the election has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot papers which are considered liable to rejection. As per sub-rule 6, a candidate at the election may, at any time during the counting of votes, request the Returning Officer in writing to recount the ballot papers relating to the ward and the Returning Officer may for reasons to be recorded either reject the request or order recounting of votes. Evidently, recounting can only be sought for if objection is made in this behalf during the counting process itself. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gursevak Singh vs. Avtar Singh, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 311 has categorically laid down that recounting can only be ordered if an objection to the said effect has been taken recourse to. Furthermore, in the case of Kattinokulla Murli Krishna vs. Veermalla Kotesware Rao, reported in AIR 2010 SC 24 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that strong prima facie case to suspect illegality in counting of votes should be established for seeking a direction of recounting. The application for recounting of votes cannot be entertained if reasons mentioned for recounting are not very specific or explicit. The pleadings of all material facts should be made elaborating the irregularities in counting. Manifestly, none of the above circumstances exists in the case at hand because neither did the petitioner raise any objection during the counting process nor has any particular irregularity been cited in any of the ballots even in the belated application forwarded to the Returning Officer after the election process had been completed. 7. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to crave recounting of votes as a ground for questioning election of the respondent No.4 on the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Paldi Siddha. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment rejecting the election petition filed by the petitioner, it is manifest that the Tribunal assessed, evaluated and appreciated the evidence led before it by the parties in an absolutely fair manner for reaching to the only just and logical conclusion that prayer made in the election petition was not fit to be accepted. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference therein in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Hence, the writ petition as well as stay application are dismissed as being devoid of merit.