A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has sought quashment of impugned order dated 18-6-2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Niwadi District Tikamgarh, by which he has directed to recount the votes.

2. Sans unnecessary details fact lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that Petitioner contested the election for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chachavali, Janpad Niwadi, District Tikamgarh and was declared as returned candidate after defeating her nearest rival (election Petitioner) who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in this petition, by a margin of 20 votes.

3. The Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 122 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') on several grounds and prayed that the ballot papers be recounted.

4. The facts and grounds pleaded and raised by the Respondent No. 1 in the memorandum of election petition were refuted by the Petitioner in her written statement.

5. The learned Election Tribunal also framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After the evidence was recorded, the matter was heard by the Election Tribunal and after considering the pleadings and evidence placed on record directed to recount the votes by the impugned order.

6. In this manner this petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

7. It has been put forth by Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes because the secrecy of a ballot is sacrosanct is democracy. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 640. By placing reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Ors. /SC/0158/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 742, it has been contended that the recount of votes cannot be ordered in a casual manner and it cannot be ordered because the margin of defeat is meagre. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court in Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 355, on the same principle and has submitted that recounting of votes should be rarely ordered. On the same principle Learned Counsel has placed reliance on another decision of Supreme Court Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2036.

8. On these premised submissions, it has been argued that the order impugned is per se illegal and the same bet set aside.

9. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Election Tribunal directing to recount the votes, which is based on necessary pleadings in the memorandum of election petition, on the basis of which issues were also framed and evidence was also led and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order of learned Election Tribunal and, hence, this petition be dismissed.

10. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. The decisions which have been cited by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner nowhere says that in an appropriate case if there is necessary pleading in the memorandum of election petition and a prayer is made in that regard and if the case is made out in evidence then recounting cannot be ordered though it should be rarely ordered and not in casual manner. In P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra), although in Para 13, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the order would be justifiable directing to recount the votes when it is proved by the material placed by the election Petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually ma