JUDGMENT

Petitioner is election petitioner in Election O.P.10/2005 on the file of Munsiff court, Perambra. First respondent is the successful candidate whose election was challenged in election O.P. Petitioner filed I.A.451/2006, an application for permission to inspect the counter foils of ballot papers. Munsiff dismissed it under Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that court below dismissed the application for the reason that if the petition is allowed, secrecy of the election will be lost and therefore petition cannot be allowed. Relying on the decision of Apex court in Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene (1994 (1) KLT 887 SC) learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the reasoning given by the court below is unsustainable and therefore the order is to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent relying on the decision of Apex court Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and other (AIR 1975 SC 2117) which was affirmed by the Apex court in Achuthanandan v. Francis (2001 (1) KLT 740 SC) argued that petitioner cannot be granted an opportunity to i