JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 29.3.2017 passed in Revision No.38 of 2016, Devendra Singh v. Ashok Kumar & ors., by the Revisional Authority under section 12C(6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1947'). 2. The facts of the case in brief are that elections were held to the office of Gram Pradhan, Village Ismailmau, Pargana & Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli, on 10.12.2015 at Booth No.20 and 21. It is the admitted case of the contesting parties represented through Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shireesh Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party no.6 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the official opposite parties that the total number of voters was 1336. After polling, the votes were counted and the petitioner Ashok Kumar was declared elected having secured four votes more than the opposite party no.6. An election petition was filed by the opposite party no.6 under section 12C(1) of the Act 1947 before the Prescribed Authority who was the Sub Divisional Magistrate but the same was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2016, against which a revision was filed by the opposite party no.6 Devendra Singh which was allowed by the Revisional Authority who was the Additional District Judge Court No.4, Raebareli, vide his judgment dated 29.3.2017 setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and remanding the matter back to him. Against the said judgment the petitioner filed this writ petition wherein an interim order was passed on 8.5.2017 staying further proceedings before the Prescribed Authority pursuant to the remand order passed by the Revisional Authority. 3. The contention of Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, in nutshell, was that the Revisional Authority has transgressed his jurisdiction in engaging himself in a roving and fishing inquiry to find out errors in voting and counting based on Form-11 and its comparison with Form-6 and Form-7 whereas in the pleadings of the election petition material and necessary particulars in this regard were not mentioned. There was no tangible evidence on record which could sustain the findings recorded by him nor the order of remand, as, according to him, the order of the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any error. 4. There was no tangible evidence on record which could sustain the findings recorded by him nor the order of remand, as, according to him, the order of the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any error. 4. Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.6 tried to sustain the order of the Revisional Court by inviting attention of the Court to the reasoning given by it. 5. It is the case of the election petitioner/opposite party no.6 that although a total of 1073 votes had been polled, only 1068 votes had been counted and 5 votes which had been polled in his favour had not been counted and had been kept aside. The burden was on him to prove his case. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 confined his argument based on the aforesaid claim and did not press the other pleas which were raised in the election petition as the same had not been considered by the Revisional Authority, therefore, this Court is only required to see this aspect of the matter and the exercise of power by the Revisional Authority as also by the Prescribed Authority which is implicit therein. 7. While dismissing the election petition of the opposite party no.6 the reasons which persuaded the Prescribed Authority were, firstly, that no application for recounting had been filed before the Returning Officer prior to declaration of result. The allegations in the election petition were not established from the documentary evidence on record which were public documents admissible in evidence under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The petitioner had admitted in his oral statement that only 1068 votes had been polled. The oral statement of the petitioner was contrary to the pleadings in the election petition. While in the election petition it had been averred that there was manipulation at the time of counting of votes by keeping the invalid/rejected votes in the bundle of votes of Sri Ashok Kumar and counting them in his favour, in his oral statement he had stated that the votes which were polled in his favour had been kept in the bundle of votes polled by Sri Ashok Kumar and that his valid votes had been invalidated, but, no evidence was led by him in support of his contentions nor was any objection filed in this regard in writing at the appropriate time. 8. 8. When this Court peruses the order of the Revisional Authority, it finds that the Revisional Authority exceeded his jurisdiction by engaging himself into a roving and fishing inquiry beyond the material facts and necessary particulars mentioned in the election petition. The law is very well settled that the secrecy of ballot papers is to be maintained and an order of recounting is not to be passed as a matter of course and in a casual manner. There has to be a prima facie case. Material facts and necessary particulars are required to be pleaded and proved. Burden of proof in this regard is on the election petitioner and it is of a very high degree. Moreover, an objection has to be raised regarding prayer for recounting at the appropriate time. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of a Full Bench if this Court in the case of Ram Adhar v. District Judge, 1986 RD (2) 150; the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chinnaswamy v. K.C. Palaniswamy & ors., (2004) 6 SCC 341 . 9. When the pleadings in the election petition are considered in the aforesaid background, the Court finds the pleadings therein to be rather casual and lacking in specific details as to how and in what manner the 5 votes which were allegedly polled in favour of the election petitioner were counted in favour of the elected Gram Pradhan. It is also settled principle of law that evidence adduced beyond the pleadings would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. 10. Now against this background when the findings of the Revisional Authority are considered, this Court finds, firstly, that it was right to the extent that Sri Devendra Singh, the election petitioner had nowhere admitted in his oral statement that only 1068 votes had been polled, but while finding discrepancies in recounting and remanding the matter back to the Prescribed Authority it proceeded to hold a roving and fishing inquiry to find faults and discrepancies in Forms 11, 6 and 7 which are prepared during election unmindful of the specific ground/claim of the election petitioner in the petition. The claim of the election petitioner, as already stated, was that 1073 votes had been polled, but only 1068 were counted. The claim of the election petitioner, as already stated, was that 1073 votes had been polled, but only 1068 were counted. The remaining 5 votes had been polled in his favour. Therefore, it is this case which was required to be proved by him. Any other discrepancy which did not prove the aforesaid claim was inconsequential, but the Revisional Authority failed to keep this in mind, consequently he misdirected himself. 10. He considered Form-11 in respect of Booth Nos.20 and 21 which is referable to Rule 96 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans, Up-Pradhans) Rules 1994, according to which, the Matdan Adhyaksha, shall at the close of the poll prepare a ballot-paper account in the specified form i.e. Form-11. Form-11 is thus an account of the votes polled and these ballots found to be defective prior to polling. The Revisional Authority while considering Form-11 in respect of Booth No.20 and comparing it with Form Nos.6 and 7 undertook an arithmetical and calculation exercise to arrive at a conclusion based on form-11 that a total of 442 votes had been polled and 3 had been found to be invalid, therefore, the total number of votes polled were 439, and not 440 as was incorrectly mentioned in Form-6, thus, the Revisional Authority found that there was a difference of 1 vote in actual votes polled and counted. He also found discrepancies in this regard in form-11 to the extent that it erroneously mentioned the total number of votes polled as 444 on account of the error in not deducting 2 invalid ballots. 11. Likewise, he undertook a similar exercise in respect of votes polled at Booth No.21 and found that the total number of ballots mentioned in Form-11 as 781, was incorrect. In fact, 785 ballot papers were available for voting i.e. there was a difference of 4 ballot-papers. Likewise, the ballot-papers which had not been used had been incorrectly mentioned as 152, whereas they were 156. These conclusions were arrived at by him by calculating the serial numbers of the ballot-papers given in Form-11. He found that though in Form-11, 629 votes had been mentioned as having been polled at Booth No.21, the total number of votes found after voting and as entered in Form-6 were 624, thus, there was a difference of 5 votes. These conclusions were arrived at by him by calculating the serial numbers of the ballot-papers given in Form-11. He found that though in Form-11, 629 votes had been mentioned as having been polled at Booth No.21, the total number of votes found after voting and as entered in Form-6 were 624, thus, there was a difference of 5 votes. In this context, he took note of the assertion of the election petitioner that he had raised an objection with regard to 5 valid votes polled in his favour and that Sri Ashok Kumar had claimed that the total number of votes polled in the said Booth were 626. The Revisional Authority thus found a difference of 5 votes as per the votes mentioned in Form 11 and Form-6. 12. Furthermore, on a comparison of Form-6 and Form-7 he found that though the number of invalid votes and missing votes as mentioned in Form-6 was 15 and 1. In Form-7, the number of invalid or rejected votes was mentioned as 16. Based on it, he opined that if 15 votes are deducted from the total number of votes polled i.e. 1068, then, the resultant comes to 1053, whereas only 1052 valid votes had been mentioned in the forms. Thus, he found a discrepancy in Form-6 and Form-7 also. 13. He opined that the Public Officials had not performed their duties as was required of them. The Revisional Authority brushed aside the contention of Sri Ashok Kumar that the oral statement of the election petitioner was at variance with the pleadings in the election petition, cursorily. He also brushed aside the decisions cited on behalf of Sri Ashok Kumar supporting his contention that belated application for recounting, after declaration of result by the Returning Officer, was not maintainable, cursorily without giving any cogent reason. He accordingly remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority without considering the authorities cited on behalf of Sri Ashok Kumar on the ground that he was not entering any conclusive opinion on the question of recounting. 14. Normally this Court does not interfere with an order of remand, but then there has to be some plausible reasoning for the same. 15. Petitioners claim is that 1068 votes were cast. O.P. No.6 case is that total votes caste were 1073. 14. Normally this Court does not interfere with an order of remand, but then there has to be some plausible reasoning for the same. 15. Petitioners claim is that 1068 votes were cast. O.P. No.6 case is that total votes caste were 1073. The O.P. No.6, election petitioner would succeed only if he was able to establish that 1073 and not 1068 votes were cast and 5 votes which had been cast in his favour were not counted. 16. Now, even if the reasoning given by the revisional authority is accepted, 629 votes were cast at booth no.21 and 439 at booth no.20 even then the total votes cast comes to 1068 and not 1073. The O.P. No.6 did not question the rejection of 15 valid votes therefore when these votes are deducted from 1068 the resultant valid votes are 1053. When the valid votes polled by all the candidates as mentioned in Form-6 are calculated, the total comes to 440 at Booth No.20 and 612 at Booth No.21 i.e. a total of 1052 votes. The difference is thus of only 1 vote, whereas the margin of victory is of 4 votes. 17. This apart, there was absolutely no evidence except a bald statement that five votes were polled in favour of the election petitioner which were removed at the time of counting so as to reduce the number of his votes. 18. As regards assertion that 5 votes had been cast in favour of O.P. No.6 which were allegedly not counted, there is no evidence to support it. There is no such finding of the revisional authority that 5 votes cast in favour of the petitioner had in fact been counted in favour of op.no.6 and that there was evidence in this regard. 19. There is no finding by the revisional authority that the allegation of illegal rejection of 8 votes made in para 7 of the election was proved by evidence. 20. The discrepancies pointed out by the revisional authority were beyond the scope of allegations in the election petition and in any case it was based on an erroneous fault finding approach oblivious of the context of recounting and the law on the subject requiring proof of a very high standard by the election petitioner and which prohibited a roving and fishing inquiry by the revisional authority compromising the secrecy of ballots which was paramount. 21. 21. Even as per the Revisional Authority as per Form 11 the total votes polled at Booth No.21 were 629 and at Booth no.20 they were 442. 2 invalid votes were not deducted leading to an incorrect mention of 444 votes as was also admitted by Sri Kumar during arguments. Based on this the total comes to 1071 and not 1073 as claimed by opposite party no.6. The difference, even taking this into account, was of only 3 votes whereas margin of victory was of 4 votes. 22. Furthermore, if the revisional authority’s finding that the total ballot papers available at Booth No.21 were 785 and not 781, is accepted, then, taking into consideration 555 ballot papers available at Booth No.20, the total would exceed the total numbers of voters which was only 1336, as, the total would be 1340. 23. The averments made in para-7 of the election petition have not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority and Sri Shireesh Kumar specifically stated that he did not want to press this plea before this Court obviously as there was no evidence to support it. 24. As regards the finding of the Revisional Authority that in Form-6 number of invalid votes is mentioned as 15 and 1 vote as missing, whereas in Form-7 number of invalid votes is mentioned as 16. This is nothing but at a case of adding 15 invalid votes and 1 missing vote which comes to 16 and mentioning it together instead of bifurcating them as there is no mention of 1 missing vote in Form 7 separately. 25. The Revisional Authority has misdirected himself by relying heavily on Form-11 and its comparison with Form-6 and 7. Form-11 is prepared at the close of the poll. It contains an account of the number of ballot papers available and utilized. It does not contain the account of how many ballot papers are actually found in the ballot-box when they are opened. These details are mentioned in Form-6 prepared under Rule 104(e) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules 1994’) when the ballot boxes are opened. 26. Reference may be made in this regard to the procedure prescribed at the time of counting under Rule 104. These details are mentioned in Form-6 prepared under Rule 104(e) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules 1994’) when the ballot boxes are opened. 26. Reference may be made in this regard to the procedure prescribed at the time of counting under Rule 104. Firstly, the Nirvachan Adhikari is required to satisfy himself that all the ballot boxes used at the poll which are to be counted at that place have been received and accounted for. Then the Nirvachan Adhikari allows the candidate and their Nirvachan Abhikartas and Gadna Abhikartas present at the counting an opportunity to inspect the ballot boxes and their seals for satisfying themselves that they are in order. There is no pleading in this case that any error was detected by the opposite party no.6 or his agents at this stage nor is there any evidence in this regard. 27. Thereafter, the Nirvachan Adhikari satisfies himself that none of the boxes has in fact been tampered with. However, if any ballot box is found by him to have been tampered with or destroyed or lost, the Nirvachan Adhikari shall not proceed with the counting of votes and the provision of Rule 100 shall apply. It is nobody's case that any ballot-box was found tampered or destroyed or lost. 28. On being satisfied in terms of Rule 104(c) that all ballot boxes which are to be counted have been received and are in order, the Nirvachan Adhikari takes up the counting of ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes. The ballot boxes used at a polling place are opened and the counting of the ballot papers found in those boxes proceeded with, in accordance with the instructions of the State Election Commission, at the same time. 29. In this context it is relevant to refer to the instructions of the Election Commission, a copy of which has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties before the Court, Chapter XI of which, relates to counting and declaration of results. Clause 1(20) of the said chapter refers to examination of seal of the ballot boxes etc. Clause 1(21), 1(22) and 1(23) provide for inspection of the ballot boxes by the candidate and his agents. Clause 1(20) of the said chapter refers to examination of seal of the ballot boxes etc. Clause 1(21), 1(22) and 1(23) provide for inspection of the ballot boxes by the candidate and his agents. If any candidate or his Nirvachan Abhikarta questions the correctness of the rejection of any ballot paper, the Nirvachan Adhikari shall also record briefly on such ballot paper the grounds for his rejection. As already stated, it is not the case of the opposite party no.6 Sri Devendra Singh that any error was found in the ballot boxes. Clause 1(24) refers to the confidentiality of counting. 30. Clause 14 of Chapter XI of the instructions by the U.P. State Election Commission reads as under: ^^14- iquxZ.kuk % blds fy;s fdlh mEehnokj ;k mlds fuokZpu vfHkdrkZ ;k x.kuk vfHkdrkZ ds izkFkZuk i= ij fuokZpu vf/kdkjh ds fuokZpu ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djus ds iwoZ erksa dh fQj ls lEiw.kZ ;k vkaf’kd x.kuk dh tk ldsxh fdUrq fuokZpu vf/kdkjh fdlh ,sls izkFkZuk i= dks] tks mls O;FkZ ;k vuqfpr tku iM+s] vLohd`r djus dk dkj.k ml le; vfHkfyf[kr djds vLohd`r dj nsxkA rRi’pkr~ x.kuk i;Zos{kd }kjk fooj.k rS;kj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj mlesa uke lfgr gLrk{kj djus ds ckn fuokZpu vf/kdkjh@lgk;d fuokZpu vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;s tk;asxsA lgk;d fuokZpu vf/kdkjh@fuokZpu vf/kdkjh }kjk bu fooj.kksa dh izfof"V;ksa dk lR; ijh{k.k djus ds i’pkr~ fuokZfpr izR;k’kh dk ;FkkLFkku uke fy[kdj gLrk{kj fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 31. The aforesaid provision read with Rule 104(d) makes it clear that prior to declaration of result an application for recounting entirely or partially can be submitted to the Returning Officer by the candidate or his Nirvachan Abhikarta or Gadna Adhikarta, but if the Returning Officer finds any such application to be frivolous or unjustified, then he can reject the same giving reasons for it. In the instant case it is said that Sri Devendra Singh submitted the application for recounting after declaration of the result by the Returning Officer. 32. After the counting takes place an account of the ballot papers found in the boxes shall be recorded in a statement in the form specified by the State Election Commission. Now the form in which the statement is recorded is Form-6. 33. 32. After the counting takes place an account of the ballot papers found in the boxes shall be recorded in a statement in the form specified by the State Election Commission. Now the form in which the statement is recorded is Form-6. 33. Under Clause (f) of Rule 104 the Nirvachan Adhikari allows the candidates and their agents who may be present a reasonable opportunity to inspect all ballot papers which in the opinion of the Nirvachan Adhikari are liable to be rejected. It is not the case of the election petitioner nor is there any evidence to show that, at this stage, any objection was raised by the election petitioner about any discrepancy in the ballot papers which were liable to be rejected. 34. Now as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules and the instructions of the Election Commission, Form-6 contains the statement referred in Rule 104(e) in respect of one polling booth, but after the counting at all the polling booths is over, the details of all the polling booths is entered in Form-7, therefore, it is Form-6 and Form-7 which are of utmost importance, as, Form-6 contains the details of the ballot papers taken out from the sealed ballot boxes in the presence of the candidates and his agents who have ample opportunity to raise any objection as to the veracity and validity of such exercise and thereafter, when the counting takes place, its result is also entered in Form-6 and then in Form-7, as stated hereinabove. At no point of time the election petitioner objected or pointed out any error in this exercise. 35. Now the relevance of Form-6 and Form-7 which are on record is self evident as, Form-6 contains the statement after the ballot-boxes are opened and the counting has taken place. Form-6 pertaining to Booth No.20 reveals that 3 ballot papers were rejected and one was missing. Total number of valid votes were 440. One missing vote was detected when the votes were compared with Form-11. As regards Booth No.21, the total number of votes polled were 624 out of which 12 were rejected or were invalid votes. Thus, total number of valid votes as mentioned in Form 6 were 5 less than the total number of votes mentioned in Form-11 i.e. 629. One missing vote was detected when the votes were compared with Form-11. As regards Booth No.21, the total number of votes polled were 624 out of which 12 were rejected or were invalid votes. Thus, total number of valid votes as mentioned in Form 6 were 5 less than the total number of votes mentioned in Form-11 i.e. 629. The Revisional Authority has found these discrepancies sufficient to set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter back to him for reconsideration. Form-11 is prepared at the stage of Rule 96 after voting is complete, but, at that time, neither the candidates nor their agents are associated in the exercise nor can they point out any error, whereas, at the time of counting and preparation of Form-6, they have an opportunity to do so under Rule 104 and they are associated with the said exercise, as such, the reliance placed by the Revisional Authority upon Form-11 without looking into the provisions of Rule 96 and Rule 104 and the instructions of the Election Commission so as to ascertain the evidentiary value of Form-11 viz.-a-viz. Form-6 and Form-7, is erroneous. Considering the errors in Form-11 relied upon by the election petitioner and as accepted by the Revisional Authority himself the possibility of an error at that stage is much more than the possibility of an error during counting and at the stage of preparation of Form-6, as, at the latter stage, the candidates and their agents are associated with the process and have ample opportunity to object to any error, but no such objection was raised. 36. As already stated earlier even if the findings of the Revisional Authority are taken at their face value, the case of the election petitioner that total votes polled were 1073 and not 1068 and that 5 votes which were cast in his favour were not counted, was not proved. 37. Moreover, the Revisional Authority was not required to find discrepancies in the forms to make out a case for the opposite party no.6 Devendra Singh. He was required to see as to whether assertion of the opposite party no.6 was proved from the material on record. 37. Moreover, the Revisional Authority was not required to find discrepancies in the forms to make out a case for the opposite party no.6 Devendra Singh. He was required to see as to whether assertion of the opposite party no.6 was proved from the material on record. He should not have been persuaded by suspicion and doubts based on alleged discrepancies in the forms beyond the scope of allegations in the petition and should have considered the specific case of the election petitioner, whether it was proved or not. He was not required to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry in this regard. 38. In view of the above, apart from the fact that the pleadings in the election petition are vague, lacking in necessary particulars and material facts, even these vague assertions could not be proved by the election petitioner upon whom lay the burden. 39. As no objection was raised by the election petitioner or his agent with regard to the ballot boxes and the ballot papers proposed to be rejected at the appropriate time, there is nothing on record to suggest that any malpractice had taken place warranting a recounting. 40. As already stated earlier, it is for the election petitioner to discharge the burden imposed upon him in the light of the pleadings made. At no point of time during the stage of counting any objection was raised by the election petitioner Sri Devendra Singh with regard to malpractice or manipulation in the counting of votes nor did he make any application for recounting prior to declaration of the result, as was admitted by Sri Shireesh Kumar, Advocate, and as is also evident from the records which shows that the application for recounting was submitted at 1.30 p.m., whereas the result was declared at 9.30 a.m, therefore, this is also a factor which went against the opposite party no.6 in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 331 , Chandrika Prasad v. State of Bihar and in the case of Hoshila Tiwari v. State of Bihar, (2005) 12 SCC 342 , and Vadivelu v. Sunderam and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 355 especially as in the pleadings of the election petition there was no averment that he was prevented by certain prevailing material situation from making such application. Had it been done with proof in support thereof, then even if no application had been submitted this aspect could be considered. In the absence of the pleadings any evidence even in the form of oral evidence was not admissible in this regard. 41. The Revisional Authority lost sight of the fact that secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly and an order of recounting of votes could not be granted as a matter of course. No doubt the Prescribed Authority's order insofar as it mentions an admission of the election petitioner regarding the number of votes polled was incorrect, but that was not the only reason for dismissing the election petition. He had clearly relied upon the public documents in the form of Form-6 and Form-7 etc. which were before him and the veracity and credibility of which remained unimpeached, to hold that the averments made in the election petition were belied from these documents which were public documents. The Revisional Authority was also not right in cursorily rejecting the contention that the application for recounting was not submitted before the declaration of result, as, after it the Returning Officer had been rendered functus officio. In this view of the matter the Revisional Authority erred in passing the order of remand, as the prerequisites were not satisfied. 42. In view of the above, the order of the Revisional Authority is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 43. Original records which were retained are returned to Sri J.P. Maurya, Addl. C.S.C. for being handed over to the concerned officials.