GANGESHWAR PRASAD, J. : This is an appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Election Tribunal, Azamgarh dismissing an election petition filed by Tribeni Rai appellant.

2. The petition arose out of an election held in 1962 for membership to the V.P. Vidhan Sabha Deogaon Assembly Constituency No. 227 of district Azamgarh. The election was contested by the appellant and the five respondents. Polling took place on 19th February, 1962 and counting of votes was done continuously from 10 A.M. of 26th February to about 5 A.M. of 27th February, 1962. According to the counting, Sri Satyadeo Singh, respondent No. 1 secured 12505 votes, Sri Tribeni Rai, appellant, 12497 votes, Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 2, 11058 votes, Tej Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 3. 6350 votes. Ram Jug Yadava, respondent No. 4 3659 votes and Amardeo Ram, No. 5, 3588 votes. As a result, Satyadeo Singh, respondent No. 1 was declared elected. An election petition was then filed by the appellant praying that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared void and the appellant be declared duly elected. The grounds on which the petition was based were :

"(1) that respondent No. 1 was declared elected by improper reception and improper rejection of votes and by reception of void votes;

(2) that the Returning Officer did not comply with R. 56 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 relating to scrutiny and rejection of ballot papers and his failure to do so resulted in wrong admission of invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and wrong rejection of invalid votes cast in favour of the petitioner;

(3) that several persons whose names appeared on the electoral roll were either dead or were not present on the date of the poll and their votes were cast in favour of respondent No. 1 by others who impersonated for them; and

(4) that in fact the appellant received a majority of valid votes."

3. The Tribunal held that none of these grounds had been substantiated by the petitioner. It further came to the conclusion that no case for recounting of votes had been made out and it disallowed the prayer of the petitioner in that behalf. In the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court objections were taken to all the findings of the Tribunal, but at the hearing of the appeal Mr. Jagdish Sarup, learned counsel for the appellant, confined his attack against the decision of the Tribunal to the question whether a case for recounting of votes had been made out by the appellant, and he did not challenge the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal on other matters. The only contention raised by Jagdish Sarup in his argument was that there was ample material to justify a recount and the Tribunal acted erroneously in rejecting the request for it. We are, therefore, concerned only with examining the soundness of this contention.

4. Before proceeding to enquire in what circumstances a recount is permissible and whether such circumstances existed in the present case, we think it necessary to point out that the grounds on which an election petition may be filed and the powers exercisable by an election tribunal in dealing with it must be regarded as having been exhaustively dealt with by the Act and the rules made thereunder, and. general equitable considerations which are not recognised or supported by the Act or by the rules framed thereunder cannot be imported into

proceedings relating to election petitions. This feature of the law relating to elections was emphasised by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210, in the following words :

"The general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the Court possesses no common law or power."

5. Bearing the above observation in mind, let