The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific and clear averments in the election petition, prima facie establishment of irregularities, and imperativeness of recount for complete justice between the parties.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record from the Court of the up Ziladhikari, Mathura, respondent No. 1 and quash the order dated 17th April 2004 passed by the respondent No. 1, filed as annexure 10 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs. By means of the order dated 17th April 2004, the respondent no. 1 has allowed the application dated 27th december 2002 filed by Ram Saran, respondent No. 3, for recounting of the votes and had directed for recounting.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : election for the post of the Pradhan of gram Panchayat Badhal Incha, district mathura was held in the month of June 2000, in which the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 29 votes. The defeated candidate, respondent No. 3, challenged his election by means of Election Petition No. 1/1999-2000. In the election petition, the respondent No. 3 had averred that irregularities had been committed in the counting of the votes. He gave specific number of ballot papers. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the elec. tion petition is reproduced below : "10. Yeh Ki Bipakshi Sa. 1 Ke Lagbhag 40 Matpatra Aise The Jo Awaidh Wa Nirast hone Chahiye The Parantu In Awaidh matpatro Ki Aapatti Ke Babjood Bipakshi Ke vaidh Mato Me Gin Diya Gaya Bar Bar aapatti Karne Wa Agrah Karne Per Bhi Aise sabhi Matpatro Ke Number Note Nahi Karne diye Kuchh Numbero Ko Yachi Jo Note Kar paya Hal Unki Sankhya 4642060, 4641988, 4642134, 4662200, 4641843, 4841848, 4642138, 4641998, Hai Nirast Hone chahiye. 11. Yeh Ki Garna Ke Dauran Yachi Ke lagbhag 20 Matpatra Aise the Jo Vaidh Hai tatha Spashta Roop Se Yachi Ke Chunav chinha Kar Ke Khane Me Muhar Lagi Hui hai Parantu In Mato Ko Jabardasti Bahar nikal Dene Ki Dhamki Dekar Nirast kar Diya tatha Inke Number Note Karane Ki Bhi ansuni Ki Inme Se Kuchh Matpatro Ke numberan Jo Yachi Note Kar Saka Hai 4642002, 4641987, 4641992, 4642253, 4642054, 4641841, 4642059, 4642202, 4642199, 46442132, 4641920,4641912 me Sabhi Mat Wa Anya Lagbhag 8 Mat Vaidh hai Jo Yachi Ke Paksha Me Gine Jane chahiye The. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement refuting the allegations. The allegations regarding irregularity in counting was also denied.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 3 filed an application on 27th December 2002 seeking a direction for recounting of the votes. Evidence was led. The respondent No. 3 and one Sri Roshan Lal gave evidence on behalf of the election petitioner whereas the petitioner himself appeared in the witness box. The respondent No. 1 after taking into consideration the averments made in the election petition and the statement/evidence given by the respective parties, by the impugned order had directed for recounting of the ballot papers which order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri S. V. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri anupam Kulshrestha who has appeared for the respondent No. 3.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 had committed a manifest error of law in directing for recounting of the ballot papers as averments made by the respondent No. 3 in his election petition were vague and could not have been believed. According to him, in the election petition the respondent No. 3 while giving the number of ballot papers in Paragraphs 10 and 11 had specifically stated that he had noted down the numbers of the ballot papers whereas in the evidence he had stated that the number of 21 ballot papers which were declared invalid, had been noted down by Roshan Lal who was the agent of B. D. Singh and have given the slip of paper to him. Similarly, in respect of 50 votes which were declared invalid, the numbers were noted by Roshan Lal. This was also the case in respect of 19 votes which had been rejecte