The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining secrecy of ballot and the need for specific and clear allegations supported by adequate statements of material facts before allowing inspection of ballot papers in election disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner before this Court is returned candidate who has defeated respondent No.4 with a margin of five votes in a Panchayat Election whereas respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 were also participated in election. Respondent No.4 Rajbeer filed an election petition under Section 12-C of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short “Act, 1947”). After pleadings were exchanged, Election Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 23.10.2021 rejected claim of election petitioner for recounting on ground that he was failed to make out a case for recounting as pleadings and evidence were not sufficient to pass an order for recounting.

2. Election petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision petition challenging above referred order and by impugned order dated 22.09.2022, the order passed by Prescribed Authority in election petition was set aside with a direction of recounting. The petitioner herein has challenged the above order.

3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh for petitioner has vehemently urged that Revisional Court has upset order passed by Election Tribunal on a flimsy ground that an objection was taken by election petitioner at the time of counting was not considered by Election Officer as well as other defeated candidates have supported the claim of election petitioner, without appreciating factors relevant for directing recounting of votes, i.e. (i) a prima facie case must be established, (ii) material facts must be pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes, (iii) a roving and fishing inquiry shall not be directed by way of an order for recounting of votes, (iv) an objection to said effect should be raised, and (v) secrecy of ballot papers should be maintained.

4. Learned Senior Advocate in support of his above submissions has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in cases of Sadhu Singh vs. Darshan Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 255; Udey Chand vs. Surat Singh and another, (2009) 10 SCC 170 and Surendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 2721.

5. Per contra, Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar for respondent No.4 (election petitioner) has also vehemently urged that election petitioner has specifically pleaded about irregularities in counting of votes and that the votes cast in favour of election petitioner were wrongly rejected as well as the votes which ought to have been rejected were counted in favour of returned candidate. The witnesses have supported specific stand taken by election petitioner before Election Tribunal and that though margin of victory is not a sole ground to disturb secrecy of ballot papers but if a case is made out that due to irregularities in counting number of rejected votes are much more than margin of victory, an order of recounting can be passed.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 has placed reliance on Chandeshwar Saw v. Brij Bhushan Prasad, (2020) 12 SCC 70 and Smt. Harmaya vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 SCC OnLine All 3332.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.

8. Before adverting to rival submissions, following paragraphs of recent judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Sajida vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kairana, District Shamli and others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 11 would be relevant which is mentioned hereinafter -:

“12. It is well settled that it is important to maintain secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and it should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations and before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts (See, Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, (1976) 1 SCC 687:AIR 1975 SC 2117 and Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249). The discretion conferred on Courts should be not exercised in such a way so as to enable election petitioner to indulge in a roving enquiry in