( 1 ) THE rival parties to the present lis are represented by Sri G. Rama gopal and Sri Gudapati Venkateswar Rao. The said learned Counsel representing the respective parties made submissions at length virtually touching all the questions involved in the present lis. The simple question in controversy between the parties is the order impugned ordering recounting of votes in E. O. P. No. 60/2001 on the file of Election Tribunal/senior Civil Judge, vizianagaram.

( 2 ) SMT. LAGUDU Anuradha, revision petitioner is 1st respondent in E. O. P. No. 60/ 2001 aforesaid and 1st respondent herein gorrepotu Chellayyamma is the petitioner in the said E. O. P. In E. O. P. No. 60/2001 the relief prayed for at Para-6 reads as hereunder:a. Declaring that the Election of the 1st respondent as Member of Z. P. T. C. of Jani z. P. T. C. as null and void and also invalid;b. Declaring that the petitioner is duly elected member of Jami Z. P. T. C. by ordering re- counting of the ballot papers;the pleadings of the respective parties need not be elaborately dealt with in the present context. At Para-5 of the impugned order, the Election Tribunal framed the following Point for consideration : whether the petitioner is entitled to the order of re-count of ballot papers as prayed for by her ? the said Point framed was no doubt discussed at Paras 6 to 11 referring to the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, RW-1 to RW-5, ex. A-1 and also Exs. B-1 to B-3. Counting of ballot papers, irregularities relating thereto in general, postal ballot papers and violation of certain circulars in particular are made the grounds of attack and certain reasons had been recorded by the Election Tribunal for ordering recounting. The principal submission is that material particulars as required were neither pleaded nor proved for ordering recounting and on such insufficient material, an order of recounting cannot be made and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained.

( 3 ) IN T. Penchalaiah v. Election court, 1990 (1) ALT 669, while dealing with recounting of votes in an election in relation to Grama Panchayat under A. P. Gram Panchayats (Conduct of Election) rules 1978 it was held at Para-36 as hereunder: ("from the aforesaid rulings, the following principles can be summarized:- Material particulars have to be stated in the petition. What are material particulars differ from case to case but general allegations of irregularities in counting can never furnish a ground for ordering a recount. A half-hearted or partial statement of material particulars may not also be a reason for the Court to order a recount even though it may, in certain circumstances, be sufficient for the Returning officer to order recount. The petition must specify the material or basis on which his information is based or the record on the basis of which his counting agents have furnished him the information. The existence of any contemporaneous record of the filing of any application before the returning Officer during the counting would lend support to the particulars stated in the petition. Mere furnishing of minute details so as to satisfy certain requirements of law as decided by the Courts cannot B| help unless material in support thereof isf also set out in the petition. The Court must consider whether the petitioner could not have given other facts, such as the polling booth numbers or the round of counting. "b ong reliance was placed on the decisions deified hereunder: baldev Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 sc 693, Chandra Singh v. Shivram, AIR I 1975 SC 403, Jatendra Bahadur v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276, S narayanan v. S. Semmalal, ATR 1980 SC 206, Beli Ram v. Jai Behari Lai, A! 1975 SC 283, Ram Avtar v. Ram Gopal, air 1975 SC 2182, Sumitra Devi v. Sheo shankar , AIR 1973 SC 215, Dr. Jagat singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 sc 773, Ram Sewak v. H. K. Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249, P. K. K. Shamsuddeen v. K. A. MMappilal Mohiddin, AIR 1989 SC 640, Shradha Devi v. Krishna Chandra, I ai