By means of the present petition the petitioner has canvassed the validity of the impugned order dated 29-1-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 i. e. Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and sought its quashment.

2. The facts essential for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner who was pitched against respondents 3 to 5 in the election of Gram Pradhan for Gram Panchayat Chitrasenpur Block Sevapuri Tahsil and District Varanasi, was declared successful on 26-6-2000 having secured 844 votes while respondent No. 3 was a close follower having polled 826 votes. In the said election total votes polled were 1829 and out of which 1715 votes were held valid and 114 votes were declared invalid. In the quadrangle fight, other contestants i. e. Jagarnath respondent No. 4 secured 39 votes while Satish respondent No. 5 received 6 votes. Opposite Party No. 3 assailed the election by means of election petition on 11-7-2000 made under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Prescribed Authority/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Varanasi on various grounds delineated in the election petition seeking the relief of recounting. The Prescribed Authority/election Tribunal recorded the evidence and in ultimate analysis, dismissed the election petition by means of order dated 17-11-2003. Aggrieved by the order of Election Tribunal, a revision was preferred by respondent No. 3 which culminated in being allowed attended with the direction for recounting of votes after summoning the entire original record. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Varanasi.

3. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V. K. Singh, focused on three points in the course of arguments, which are abstracted below:

(1) Order passed by Addl. District Judge while exercising power of revisional authority was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority.

(2) The revisional authority has not cited in his order any illegality or perversity in the order of the Prescribed Authority while reversing its order and.

(3) There is neither any specific pleading nor any valid material available on record for recounting and fishing and roving enquiry into the process of election is not permissible in the election petition unless specific pleading or proof is there making out a case for recounting.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed credence on following case laws in vindication of his contentions:

(i) Ram Adhar v. State, 1985 UPLBEC p. 317 (Full Bench ).

(ii) Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal cum-Sub-Judge Hissar and Anr. , AIR 2000 P & H 1 Full Bench.

(iii) Mahendra Pal v. Shri Ram Das Malanger & Ors. , 2002 JT Vol II p. 396.

(iv) Mahendra Pal v. Ram Das Malanger, 2002 (1) LBESR 732 (SC) : 2002 Vol. III SCC p. 457.

(v) 2003 AWC Vol I p. 67.

(vi) 2003 ACJ Vol 1 p. 220.

Per contra, Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the caveator Opp. Party No. 3 forcefully and vigorously argued that there was specific averments in the election petition that out of 114 votes jettisoned out of reckoning, 80 ballot papers were such in which voters had affixed mark of seal against the symbol i. e. car which was the symbol allotted to the respondent No. 3 and which according to the learned Counsel could not have been reckoned out of consideration and declared invalid. The learned Counsel also submitted that in this connection, the respondent No. 3 had made specific averments contained in the election petition which received reinforcement from other materials on record including statement of the respondent No. 3 and this furnished foundation for prayer of recounting of votes and the Prescribed

Authority in utter disregard of all these materials on record, dismissed the election without any valid justification and on untenable grounds. He also submitted that in exercise of power