JUDGMENT 1. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order dtd. 18/5/2023 passed in I.A No.369 of 2023 & I.A.No.368 of 2023 in E.P.No.01 of 2021 on the file of the Special Officer (Election Tribunal)-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short "the Election Tribunal"). 2. As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. 3. The present impugned I.A.No.368 of 2023 and I.A No.369 of 2023 were filed by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal against the respondents under Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to reopen the matter and to grant permission to open the box which contains the Election material which is under the custody of the Tribunal in the presence of both the parties and their respective counsels to recount in order to ascertain about double casting of the votes, about the casting of the vote belonging to the person who is residing in Foreign country on the date of Election and other malpractices done by the 1st respondent with the support of respondents no.2 to 4. 4. Originally the petitioner filed the main Election OP questioning the Election of the 1st respondent as the Sarpanch of M.Muppalla Village and it was illegally declared that the petitioner was defeated and the 1st respondent was elected in the election with a margin of Two (2) votes. In the Voters list published in M.Muppalla Village, it was noticed that one Talluri Gopi Krishna has three (3) votes in this Panchayat at Sl.Nos.64, 616 and 618 and he casted his vote for twice. Similarly the name of Chinnam Ramya Sri is entered twice in the voters list at Sl.Nos.265 and 1740, and she casted her vote for twice. The daughter-in-law of 1st respondent by name Vykunta/ Maddineni Pavani casted a vote by impersonating the real voter by name Muddana Sujatha @ Vykunta Sujatha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, who is living in Abroad on 9/2/2021 i.e., date of election. After declaration of election by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and her agents requested for recounting, but they refused. Even as per the final result sheet the calculation is wrong. After declaration of election by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and her agents requested for recounting, but they refused. Even as per the final result sheet the calculation is wrong. The evidence of petitioner shows that the said Talluri Gopi Krishna has three (3) votes and he casted two (2) votes, Chinnam Ramya Sri also has two (2) votes and she casted two (2) votes. Further, unless the box contained the election material is opened, it is not possible whether any person casted vote by impersonating the real voter. Similarly, it is not possible to establish about double casting of votes by Chinnam Ramya Sri and Talluri Gopi Krishna. Hence, the present impugned applications were filed before the Election Tribunal. After careful consideration, the same were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief to reopen the Election OP and to grant permission to open the box containing the election material for recounting in order to ascertain about double casting of the votes, about the casting of the vote belonging to the person, who is residing in Foreign Country on the date of election and other malpractices done by the 1st respondent with the support of respondents No.2 to 4 at that stage. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent in CRP No.1433 of 2023 denying all the allegations made in the petitions. It is stated that, the petitioner and the 1st respondent contested for the post of Sarpanch of Maddirala Muppalla Village in the Panchayat Elections conducted in the year 2021. In the said elections, the 1st respondent herein was declared and elected as Sarpanch of Maddirala Muppalla Village by the voters of the Village with the margin of 2 votes. In view of the little margin and undigesting the defeat, the petitioner herein filed a petition in EOP No.1 of 2021 before the Election Tribunal with false and baseless allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the very voters list prepared by the Government authorities to conduct elections of Muppalla Panchayat, prior to the nominations of the panchayat elections. The petitioner failed to question the list of voters before election. The petitioner has no right to question the list of voters after declare the elections and after the petitioner lost her election. Thereafter, the petitioner questioned the very voters list prepared by the Government authorities to conduct elections of Muppalla Panchayat, prior to the nominations of the panchayat elections. The petitioner failed to question the list of voters before election. The petitioner has no right to question the list of voters after declare the elections and after the petitioner lost her election. The scope of the election OP is to question the election process held on the date of the elections and counting process held after the polling of the votes. The petitioner filed the election OP by questioning the very list of voters, finalized by the Government authorities to conduct the elections of Muppala Grampanchayat. It is further stated that the 1st respondent did not malpractice in the election process in any manner. The 1st respondent has not encouraged anybody to vote twice or thrice in any manner and had not encouraged anybody to vote twice or thrice in any manner. The petitioner might have influenced and encouraged voters to vote twice or thrice to win by hook or crook and that she has made allegations against the 1st respondent. It is further stated that, it is absolutely false to say that 18 votes casted in favour of the petitioner are invalidated by the officials to help the 1st respondent. No vote belongs to the petitioner was rejected on any flimsy grounds by the officers. No vote was given to the 1st respondent by doing favour to her by the officers in any manner. Entire counting process was at the time of counting of the votes. The 1st respondent was called to the counting hall after entire counting process was over and after counting of the Sarpanch votes twice, to give declaration form to her. Jetti Anjaneyulu, Pentyala Suresh and Jetti Sandeep were present on behalf of the petitioner as counting agents in the counting hall and they have not raised the disputes as they were satisfied with the counting made by the counting officers. It is further stated that, on perusal of the EOP and the averments mentioned in the IA would also shows that the petitioner filed I.A in premature stage o the EOP, instead of arguing the main EOP. The prayer of the petitioner in EOP is for recounting and reverification of the votes and election material palce before the Election Tribunal. It is further stated that, on perusal of the EOP and the averments mentioned in the IA would also shows that the petitioner filed I.A in premature stage o the EOP, instead of arguing the main EOP. The prayer of the petitioner in EOP is for recounting and reverification of the votes and election material palce before the Election Tribunal. The prayer of the petitioner in IA No.369 of 2023 is to reopen the box and recounting the ovtes casted in the elections. Therefore, the Election Tribunal thought it fit to dismiss the same. 6. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas representing Smt Ch. Nagendramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the common order passed by the Election Tribunal is illegal, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that the Tribunal gave a wrong finding that even though as there is no bar to re-open the box which contains election material and the same is in the custody of the court below and there is sufficient material placed by the petitioner through her evidence and documents. He further submits that the tribunal ought to have stated that the petitioner proves the prima facie material and also filed the voter list showing Ramya Sri has two votes and Gopi Krishna has three votes through Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 voters list. The petitioner also filed the evidence of immigration officer (PW.8) to show that the said Muddana Sujatha was residing in foreign country on the date of election on 9/2/2021. He mainly contended that, basing on the material, the Court below has to decide whether the tribunal satisfied that there were malpractices and manipulations in conducting the subject election or not. Instead of giving such a finding a new and illegal finding was given as if it is not the stage to give such a finding. Further, the court below ought to have stated that there is no prohibition to reopen the box which contains election material to ascertain the truth before pronouncing the final judgment. 8. To support his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kagitha Bhanu versus The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Gudivada, Krishna District and others, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 186. 8. To support his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kagitha Bhanu versus The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Gudivada, Krishna District and others, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 186. wherein it was held that : "......Keeping in view the nature of allegation, there cannot be any direct evidence expected to be adduced by respondent No.6 to show that all the six persons have vast their votes twice or that they have exercised Election Tribunal, a definite conclusion in this regard can be arrived at only after opining of the ballot boxes because the counter foils of ballot books are in sealed covers. Without verification of these ballot books with reference to the marked voters' list, also kept in the sealed cover, it is not possible to know with certainty whether the petitioner's averments are correct or not. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the court can at best come to a reasonable conclusion. Faced with such a situation, the election Tribunal has given its earnest consideration and weighed the probabilities with reference to the available evidence in coming to the conclusion that there is a possibility of six persons casting their votes twice and that as thy are the supporters of the petitioner as admitted by her in her cross examination, they would have voted in her favour......". 9. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that the election tribunal passed preliminary order of recounting on 27/1/2010 and final order on 28/4/2010 under Preliminary order the election tribunal gave direction for recounting. Learned counsel further submits that, unless the counter foils of the ballet papers are verified, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion to whom they cast their votes and how many votes were cast by them. He mainly contended that, it is well established principle of law that unless a document is marked during the course of trial or enquiry before any Court or tribunal the same cannot be looked into at the time of pronouncing the judgment so, it is necessary for recounting/inspection of ballot papers and passed preliminary order. It means the trial Court going to pronounce the final order without looking into election material and without marking relevant ballot papers through witness and counter foils and if it does so great injustice would be caused to the petitioner herein. It means the trial Court going to pronounce the final order without looking into election material and without marking relevant ballot papers through witness and counter foils and if it does so great injustice would be caused to the petitioner herein. Hence, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that the eligible persons of Muppalla Village to have vote in the elections of Panchayat, Muppalla have applied for inclusions of their names in the voters list as a matter of right in the year 2019-20 and the Government of Andhra Pradesh considered the eligibility of persons to vote and finalized the voters list in the state of AP for the panchayat and furnished the voters list to the election officers to go for election process. Accordingly, the election authorities have finalized the voters list and published the voters list before the elections and also furnished the voters list. There is nothing irregularity or illegality in finalizing the voters list by the Panchayat authorities as per the Government Orders. but the petitioner falsely alleged that voters list was prepared after 25/1/2021 by including 54 voter supporting the candidature of the 1st respondent. He further submits that the petitioner conveniently filed petitions one after the other to verify the alleged double votes said to have been voted by Talluri Gopi Krishna, Chinnam Ramya Sri and the vote belongs to Vykunta Sujatha said to have been polled without asking to verify the total polled votes, postal ballets and other election material i.e., available in the boxes. The said process has to be done by the Hon'ble Court in the presence of all the parties, their counsels and in the presence of Election Officers Stage-I and Stage-2 and Election authorities. If the total votes polled are verified and if the poling process and counting process recorded in Web cameras by the competent authorities is verified the fact will come out, whether the allegations made by the petitioner is genuine or not. If the total votes polled are verified and if the polling process and counting process recorded in web cameras by the Election Authorities is verified the fact will come out, whether the allegations made by the petitioner is genuine or not. If the total votes polled are verified and if the polling process and counting process recorded in web cameras by the Election Authorities is verified the fact will come out, whether the allegations made by the petitioner is genuine or not. But the petitioner seeking to reopen and to verify and ascertain about the double votes said to have been voted by Raya Sri and Talluri Gopi Krishna and the vote of Vykunta Sujatha, for which the petitioner is not entitled. He mainly argued that the election material was sealed in the covers by the Stage-II Election officer i.e., 2nd respondent and handed over to MPDO i.e., 4th respondent; and that both the respondents have to check and verify about the seal and open the boxes containing the election material. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the common order passed by the court below is correct and proper and hence prayed to dismiss the petitions. 11. To support his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra High Court reported in Challa Swaroopa vs. The District Collector (District Election authority), Khammam Town and others, WP No.7276 of 2014, dt. 2/6/2014. wherein it was held that : DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICE AN IRRELEVANT FACTOR: While allowing I.A.No.840 of 2013, by order dtd. 25/2/2014, the Election Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in ordering recounting of votes. Having regard to the consequences emanating from the direction of re- counting, which may even breach the secrecy of the ballot, the doctrine of prejudice is an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count. Similarly, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not, per se, give rise to a presumption that there was an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. In the first instance, material facts in this behalf have to be stated clearly in the election petition and then proved by cogent evidence. The onus to prove the allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election process, on the part of the Election Officer, is on the election petitioner and not on the Election Officer. (Kattinokkula Murali Krishna3). Recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The petitioner who seeks recount of votes must be able to place on record prima facie proof in support of the allegations made in the election petition. (Kattinokkula Murali Krishna3). Recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The petitioner who seeks recount of votes must be able to place on record prima facie proof in support of the allegations made in the election petition. Merely because some serious allegations have been made, it is not proper to order recount of votes on the premise that no prejudice would be caused to the returned candidate by ordering such recount. (Kommuri Pratap Reddy5). Absence of prejudice is not a factor which should have weighed with the Election Tribunal in passing the interim order for recounting of votes. While the impugned order must be set aside on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Election Tribunal to pass an interlocutory order at the very inception, more so one which has the effect of partly allowing the Election Petition itself, the fact remains that any delay in adjudication of the Election Petition may well result in the statutory right of the election petitioner, to hold the elected office of Sarpanch, being deprived thereby. The inconsistencies in the recount of votes, variations in the number of invalid votes at the time of each recount, and the power of the Returning Officer to order a third recount, have been put in issue, in his Election Petition, by the 6th respondent herein. While the submission of Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, that the action of the Returning Officer in this regard is exfacie illegal cannot be readily brushed aside, these are matters for adjudication by the Election Tribunal and not for examination in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I consider it appropriate therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, to direct the Election Tribunal to adjudicate the Election Petition with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute and the Election Tribunal shall adjudicate the Election O.P. on its merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order or in its earlier order in I.A. No.840 of 2013 in Election O.P.No.16 of 2013 dtd. 25/2/2014. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute and the Election Tribunal shall adjudicate the Election O.P. on its merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order or in its earlier order in I.A. No.840 of 2013 in Election O.P.No.16 of 2013 dtd. 25/2/2014. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the onus to prove the allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election process, on the part of the Election Officer, is on the election petitioner and not on the Election Officer. Recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The petitioner who seeks recount of votes must be able to place on record prima facie proof in support of the allegations made in the election petition. Merely because some serious allegations have been made, it is not proper to order recount of votes on the premise that no prejudice would be caused to the returned candidate by ordering such recount. He further submits that the recounting and re-verification of each vote to be calculated in the presence of the Election Authority and this is not the stage to open the boxes and it is a premature stage and hence these petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13. On perusing the material available on record, this Court observed that the petitioner has sought for relief of recounting as one of the main reliefs in the main Election OP and an issue was also framed to that effect and it is for the petitioner to establish the same after adducing both oral and documentary evidence and for respondents No.1 to 5 to disprove the same. Further, the petitioner has made allegations against the respondents in the main Election OP and also has been contending that there were malpractices and manipulations in conducting the subject election and sought to set aside the election of the 1st respondent as null and void for the said malpractices and manipulations. 14. Further, the petitioner has made allegations against the respondents in the main Election OP and also has been contending that there were malpractices and manipulations in conducting the subject election and sought to set aside the election of the 1st respondent as null and void for the said malpractices and manipulations. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusing the citations referred to above, and keeping in view the nature of allegation, there cannot be any direct evidence expected to be adduced by the respondents to show that the persons i.e., Talluri Gopi Krishna has three votes and Chinnam Ramya Sri casted her vote for twice and the daughter-in-law of 1st respondent by name Vykunta/ Maddineni Pavani casted a vote impersonating the real voter by name Muddana Sujatha @ Vykunta Sujatha, who is living in Abroad on 9/2/2021 i.e., the date of election or that they have exercised their choice in favour of the petitioner only. Without verification of these ballot books with reference to the marked voters list, also kept in the sealed cover, it is not possible to know with certainty whether the petitioner's averments are correct or not. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the Court can at best come to a reasonable conclusion. 15. In a case of Chandeshwar Saw versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others, Civil Appeal No.780 of 2020. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : 9. Indeed, in the case of Bhabhi (supra), this Court has delineated the contours for issuing direction of inspection or recount of votes in the following words: 15. 15. In a case of Chandeshwar Saw versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others, Civil Appeal No.780 of 2020. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : 9. Indeed, in the case of Bhabhi (supra), this Court has delineated the contours for issuing direction of inspection or recount of votes in the following words: 15. Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers: (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials." If all these circumstances enter into the mind of the Judge and he is satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled in a given case, the exercise of the discretion would undoubtedly be proper." 11. A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Division Bench has interfered with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal, which was justly upheld by the learned single Judge, directing recount of votes. It appears that after the recount, the appellant/election petitioner has secured 95 excess valid votes, more than the valid votes secured by respondent No.1. It appears that after the recount, the appellant/election petitioner has secured 95 excess valid votes, more than the valid votes secured by respondent No.1. That has reinforced the challenge set up by the appellant that the officials had committed serious irregularities bordering on intentional manipulation of the valid votes secured by the appellant. As a result, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of recount of votes, as passed by the Election Tribunal (dtd. 11/10/2018) and justly upheld by the learned single Judge (vide order dtd. 6/3/2019), in the facts of the present case. 16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid judicial pronouncements on the subject when this Court proceeds to consider as to whether the learned Election Tribunal has considered the materials available on the record and whether based on such materials a prima facie satisfaction regarding the truth of allegation for recounting of votes has been taken? 17. As seen from the material available on record, this Court observed that the 1st respondent in his cross examination he himself admitted that he has no objection for conducting counting of votes in the open Court. Further, the tribunal has also without giving proper finding simply dismissed the applications. This Court further observed that the petitioner has filed a copy of order of this Court in CRP No.1555 of 2022, dtd. 16/8/2022 which was filed for speedy disposal of the E.O.P., and requests this Court to issue a direction to the Election Tribunal for speedy disposal of the present EOP No.1 of 2021. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I consider it appropriate, while setting aside the impugned common order, to direct the Election Tribunal to adjudicate the Election Petition with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute and the Election Tribunal shall adjudicate the Election O.P on its merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or in its earlier common order dtd. 18/5/2023 in I.A.No.368 of 2023 and I.A No.369 of 2023 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021 by the Election Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The impugned common order dtd. 18/5/2023 in I.A.No.368 of 2023 and I.A No.369 of 2023 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021 by the Election Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The impugned common order dtd. 18/5/2023 in I.A.No.368 of 2023 and I.A No.369 of 2023 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021 by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Further, the Election Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said I.As afresh along with main E.O.P., within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.