JUDGMENT : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, alongwith Sri Tarun Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal/SDM Baberu on the election petition filed under Section 12-C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Case No. 01302 of 2021 (Afsari Khatoon vs. State Election Commission and Others). 3. Precisely, the challenge raised by the petitioner is, the Election Tribunal has passed an omnibus order providing for recounting of votes cast in the election for the Gram Pradhan of Gram Hardauli, Tehsil-Baberu, District-Banda. In absence of any specific pleadings made in the election petition (copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition), to allege any ground that may have warranted an order of recounting, though no evidence was led by the respondent-election petitioner to establish any of the permissible grounds of challenge, that may have led to an order of recounting. The findings are stated to have been recorded in a superficial manner, without reaching any conclusion as to any malpractice at that election or as to commission of any act of corruption etc. by the petitioner. 4. Thus, upon counting of votes, it was noted, 6464 ballot papers were issued. Of that only 6307 were cast. Those have been accounted for. The Election Tribunal has travelled on presumptions and conjectures to reach a conclusion that 157 votes, were not accounted for. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Amit Narain Rai vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2012 (5) ADJ 716 to submit, no summary conclusions may be drawn as to short count of ballot cast. Grounds therefore have to be specifically pleaded and proven before the Election Tribunal. Only thereafter it may provide for recounting of votes. Once the democratic exercise of votes being cast and counted was completed and result declared, the consequence arising from such exercise cannot be lightly disturbed on the mere asking on some unproven suspicion raised by the election petitioner. Grounds therefore have to be specifically pleaded and proven before the Election Tribunal. Only thereafter it may provide for recounting of votes. Once the democratic exercise of votes being cast and counted was completed and result declared, the consequence arising from such exercise cannot be lightly disturbed on the mere asking on some unproven suspicion raised by the election petitioner. A heavy burden lay on the shoulders of the election petitioner, to not only plead but prove any ground that may give rise to a direction for recounting. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has stated, besides the Rules framed under the Act, guidelines issued by the State Election Commission together with the various forms prescribed by it would govern the conduct of elections for Gram Panchayat. The mandatory directions of the State Election Commission, had to be adhered to. Thus, it has been submitted, in the first place, under Appendix-3, account of ballot papers found inside each ballot box is prepared under the signatures of the Counting Supervisor and is countersigned by the Election Officer. Appendix-5, Form-43 prescribes the Counting Slip that may disclose, amongst others, the description of Polling Booth and its number, total number of valid votes cast at such polling station, total number of bundles of votes prepared and total number of ballot papers found inside. Then, further details are to be recorded on such Form-43 disclosing the number of valid and invalid votes cast, to each candidate. That form is prepared by the Election Officer. Similarly, Appendix-7, Form-45, Part-1 is to be prepared by the Election Officer disclosing the Polling Centre number, Polling Booth number with reference to each ward. That form would further disclose the total number of valid vote cast to each candidate at that polling station. Other forms being Appendix-9 Form-47, Appendix-11 Form-49 as also Appendix-13 Form 51 have also been referred. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents submits, in the present case the election petitioner had pleaded, amongst others -at booth number 103, 85 votes had been cast in favour of the election petitioner that had been wrongly disclosed as 5. Referring to the impugned order, it has been submitted the election petitioner relied and the Election Tribunal has examined Form-43 with respect to polling booth number 103, Kanya Poorva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Hardauli. Referring to the impugned order, it has been submitted the election petitioner relied and the Election Tribunal has examined Form-43 with respect to polling booth number 103, Kanya Poorva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Hardauli. It was found, the total number of ballot papers cast at that polling booth were 250. Of that 160 were disclosed valid votes while 8 invalid votes were also counted. The balance 82 votes have not been accounted for. 7. Being a fact apparent from the bare perusal of Form43, that was examined by the Election Tribunal, it has been submitted, the Election Tribunal has not erred in directing a recount of votes. Clearly, the said discrepancy cannot be reconciled except by measure of recount adopted by the Election Tribunal. Once 250 votes were found cast at the particular polling station, the same ought to have been accounted for. Referring to the total number of votes counted, it has been submitted, the said number is only 168. Thus, according to Form-43 against 250 votes that were found cast, only following number of votes were found cast in favour of individual candidates: S. No. Candidates Name Number of bundles of valid votes Number of valid votes 1. Afsari Khatoon 0 + 05 05 2. Ayub 0 + 03 03 3. Syed Asgar Ali 0 + 13 13 4. Kamlesh 0 + 06 06 5. Maiyadeen – – 6. Farook Shah 0 + 01 01 7. Rauf Shah 0 + 08 08 8. Rajabeti – – 9. Ruksar Khan 0 + 02 02 10. Sehruddin 01 + 04 54 11. Sadiq – – 12. Sadab 01 + 18 68 8. Against that 8 votes (in all) were found invalid. Thus, only 168 out of 250 votes had been accounted for. That statement having been prepared by the Election Officer himself, no further evidence was required to be led to establish that the counting of votes at polling booth no. 103 had not been performed in compliance of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in Udey Chand vs. Surat Singh and Another, (2009) 10 SCC 170 and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishna Murari vs. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Mirzapur and Others, 2014 (123) RD 558. 9. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in Udey Chand vs. Surat Singh and Another, (2009) 10 SCC 170 and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Krishna Murari vs. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Mirzapur and Others, 2014 (123) RD 558. 9. Last it has been submitted, no specific challenge has been raised to any of the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal, in the present writ petition. Once findings of fact recorded by the Election Tribunal, have not been specifically challenged, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it may be accepted, no specific fact had been pleaded or proven with respect to the conduct of election generally. Baring polling booth no. 103, the Election Tribunal has not recorded any finding as may warrant full recounting of votes. Thus, the order of complete recounting passed by the Election Tribunal is not sustainable. To that extent, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner commends acceptance. The decision relied by both parties also support that reasoning. 11. However, insofar as the polling booth no. 103 is concerned, it does appear that necessary facts had been pleaded in the election petition as to short count of 80 votes cast in favour of the election petitioner. According to the respondent/election petitioner, at that polling booth 85 votes had been cast in his favour. Whereas 5 had been accounted for the remaining were not. It may have been the burden of the election petitioner to plead further facts and prove the same if the record of the Election Officer had not established short count of 82 votes. 12. At present, a bare perusal of Form-43 (which is undisputed), with respect to polling booth no. 103 clearly discloses 250 ballot papers were found cast. The account given of the votes cast at polling booth is only of 160 valid votes and 8 invalid votes. 13. Since Form-43 an important official record itself, is doubtful, no further burden lay on the election petitioner to prove any further fact, for the purposes of obtaining an order of recount, with respect to that polling booth. 14. At present, prima facie the election record itself suggests short count of 82 votes cast at polling booth no. 103. 13. Since Form-43 an important official record itself, is doubtful, no further burden lay on the election petitioner to prove any further fact, for the purposes of obtaining an order of recount, with respect to that polling booth. 14. At present, prima facie the election record itself suggests short count of 82 votes cast at polling booth no. 103. If that be so, the case would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 12-C(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. It is so because at the counting of votes, every vote cast has to be counted and/or accounted for before a valid election result may arise. 15. The margin of victory being 40 votes, short count of 82 votes would remain ever relevant to the fate of the election petition. Also, it cannot be ignored, though technical challenge has been raised in the present petition (to the impugned order), the findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been assailed. 16. In view of the above, the challenge raised in the present petition fails in part. Let recounting of votes be conducted with respect to polling booth no. 103, ward no. 5, Gram Panchayat, Hardauli, only. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. 17. No order as to costs.