Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Mohd. Kaisar, once again questioning the validity of decision dated 29.5.2010 taken by the Election Tribunal allowing application 112ga dated 26.11.2009 and directing for summoning of the ballots and for recounting.

2. Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that election for the post of President of Nagar Panchayat Devraniya, Tehsil Baheri, District Bareilly had been held on 3.11.2006 and the result of the said election was declared on 7.11.2006. In the election so held, in all, there were 9 contesting candidates, including the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have secured 2401 votes, whereas the election petitioner had secured 2396 votes. Questioning the validity of said election, election petition was filed, being election petition No. 34 of 2006, by Smt. Chhabili Devi. In the said proceeding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for quashing of the election petition had been filed. The Election Tribunal proceeded to pass order on the said application that the same was not at all liable to be allowed. The matter travelled up to this Court in the shape of writ petition No. 19136 of 2008, and this Court vide its judgment dated 2.5.2008 dismissed the said writ petition, noting therein that the petitioner had not filed written statement till that date; he should file his written statement. Thereafter, written statement was filed and replica was also filed to the said written statement. In the election petition so filed, in all, 12 issues were framed. In support of the averments made in the election petition three witnesses were examined by respondent No. 1 and two witnesses were examined from the side of the petitioner. Said election petition was posted for hearing on 26.11.2009. On said date an application 112-gha was filed by respondent No. 1 for calling of the record from the election office with regard to election in question and for a direction for recounting of ballots. Against the said application objections had been filed and this document was numbered as 114-gha; counter-affidavit was also filed and the same was numbered as 116-ga. Said application had been allowed on 15.12.2009, directing for summoning of the election papers and for recounting of the ballot papers and straightaway for reserving the judgment. Said order dated 15.12.2009 was assailed before this Court in writ petition No. 304 of 2010, Mohd. Kaisar v. Chhabili Devi and another, and this Court on 11.1.2010 proceeded to pass order by quashing the order dated 15.12.2009 and directives were given to reconsider the application for recounting and taking appropriate decision in accordance with law. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being extracted below :

“Recount of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the Election Petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order recount of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to recount of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties.

Now facts of the present case are being tested on the touch stone of the principle which has been settled by Full Bench of the Court as well as by Hon’ble Apex Court noted above.

In the present case earlier as to whether there existed material facts in the election petition or not, the matter