SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

1. After an election took place with regard to the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dehlikhurd, Block Sidhpura, District Kasganj, the result was declared on 13.12.2015. The respondent no.3-Om Kar challenged the election of the petitioner through Election Petition No.1037 of 2016 which was filed under section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

2. Issues were framed and the issue nos.1 and 2 when were decided, the Court came to a conclusion that the recounting of ballot papers was essential. The order for recounting was passed on 16.11.2018. The petitioner thereafter filed a Revision which was dismissed on 29.11.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the relevant paragraphs being paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the Election Petition were perused, it would become evident that the election petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that one Amar Pal Singh, son of Raj Pal was present at the time of counting on table nos.7, 8 and 9 without any authority. The further allegation was that Amar Pal had influenced the counting of votes. In paragraph 13 of the election petition itself, it was averred that one Devendra Singh son of Sovaran Singh who was a Constable in PAC was also present at the time of counting. Still further it has been averred in paragraph 13 itself that Ram Kumar son of Avneesh Kumar was also present and was unauthorisedly influencing the counting of votes. In paragraph 14 of the election petition, it had been stated that these three persons namely Amar Pal, Devendra Singh and Ram Kumar after using their influence had got the counting of the ballot papers done in such a manner that the election petitioner was declared defeated by Sushil Kumar by one vote.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no allegation in paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the election which would lead one to understand that a recounting was essential. He submits that if the three individuals namely Amar Pal, Devendra Singh and Ram Kumar were present during the counting of the ballot papers, then it could not be said that the ballot papers had to be recounted. At the most it can be said, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the election could be declared bad on account of presence of the unauthorised individuals but no case could be made out for the recounting of ballot papers. The illegal influence of the three individuals could, at the most, be taken to be a ground for setting aside the elections and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recount would be an absolute exercise in futility. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ran Adhar Singh Vs. The District Judge, Ghazipur & Ors., (1985) AWC 246 submitted that unless the petition contained an adequate statement of material facts and evidence in support thereof that a recount was essential, the recount should not take place. Relying upon the very same judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Tribunal had to be prima-facie satisfied that to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, inspection of ballot papers was absolutely necessary. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Bhual Vs. Ambika Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 121 submitted that unless pleadings are there to the effect that how the ballot papers were managed by the winning party, no recounting should be ordered. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, (2014) 5 SCC 312 a Tribunal could not go beyond the pleadings and allow recounting just to enable an election petitioner to indulge in a fishing and roving inquiry. Learned counsel further submitted that the only ground which was available to the election