The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific averments containing material particulars supported by evidence for the recount of votes in election petitions under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri N. K. Pandey for petitioner and Sri K. A. Ansari and Rajiv Sisodia, advocates for contesting respondent No. 2. With the consent of parties, under the Rules of the Court, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner has challenged an order dated 26. 11. 2002 passed by Election tribunal/additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha in pending election petition No. 34/28 of 2000 under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 challenging the election of petitioner Smt. Bhoori as Pradhan of village Hatauwa, Post Diduall, Block-Joya, District Jyotiba phulenagar by which he had directed recount of votes.

( 3 ) THIS is a seventh writ petition arising out of the same pending election petition. Brief facts of events which have led upto the date when the impugned order dated 26. 11. 2002 was made by the election Tribunal are that petitioner was returned as elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat hatauwa, Block Joya, district Jyotiba Phulenagar. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Bano, filed an election Petition. The first Writ Petition No. 54485 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 18. 12. 2000 against the order passed by the Tribunal directing petitioner to file written statement, with a finding that the writ petition was premature and that the order deferring application under Order VI Rule 16, C. P. C. did not suffer from any infirmity or error requiring interference by this Court. Second Writ Petition No. 22272 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22. 5. 2001 of the Tribunal observing that an Election Petition is maintainable. It was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Tribunal to see that all the pleas which had been raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition, and which may require additional issues to be framed, and which go to the root of maintainability of the petition, to be decided as preliminary issues. A third Writ Petition No. 25037 of 2002 filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 18. 6. 2002 calling for certain records for deciding preliminary issues was also dismissed by this Court on the ground that it is not necessary to go into the question at this stage, and that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the findings on preliminary issues. The Tribunal thereafter framed five additional issues on 12. 3. 2002 and one more additional issue was framed on 20. 5. 2002 and that by its order dated 27. 6. 2002 found that the election petition was maintainable. A fourth Writ Petition No. 26876 of 2002 filed against the order dated 27. 6. 2002 which was allowed by this Court on 30. 7. 2002, and while quashing the order, this Court directed the Prescribed Authority/ Election tribunal to decide issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as well as the issue whether the election petition was maintainable to be decided as preliminary issue expeditiously.

( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter moved a transfer application before the Collector, Jyotiba Phulenagar for transfer of election petition to some other Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that three brothers-in-law of the election petitioner are practising in Tahsil Amroha and have considerable influence in the Bar, on account of which the petitioner is not getting any advocate to look after of the case. The Collector found that the petitioner is vigorously defending her case and has filed repeated writ petitions before the High Court in which orders have been passed to expeditiously decide the election petition. The fact, that the petitioner was not getting any advocate was not substantiated inasmuch as she was represented on record.

( 5 ) THE petitioner thereafter moved an application to allow her to engage some advocate from outside Amroha. The application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no such permission was required, and that the petitioner has a right to be repre