- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. K. Dwivedi for the third respondent.
(2.) THE petition owes its advent in this Court to the order dated 11-7-1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Handia, Al lahabad thereby directing recount of the ballot papers pertaining to election in respect of the office of member Gram Panchayat Patwan Mutfarka Block Pratap-pur Tahsil Handia District Allahabad. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner secured 21 votes as against 20 votes secured by the third respondent and accordingly the petitioner was declared successful by a slender margin of one vote. THE third respondent-Ganesh Kumar took recourse to filing an election petition challenging the validity of the declaration made in favour of the petitioner. Para graph 6 of the election petition being ger-mans to the question of recounting maybe abstracted below. @hindi IRt o 1 Hd'luh! 3% i The Sub-Divisional Officer has al lowed recounting of the ballot papers on the application moved on behalf of the third respondent on the generalised ground of alleged irregularity and corrup tion during the course of counting. Admit tedly, the evidence in the case has not yet been adduced. In Ram Adhar Singh v. Dis trict Judge, 1985 UPLBEC p. 317, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the following two conditions must co-exist for directing inspection and recount of ballot papers : (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains a ground on which the election of the respondent is being questioned as also summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground. (ii) the authority is prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such inspection is imparatively necessary for deciding the dis pute for doing complete justice between the parties. It is thus evident that prima facie satisfaction to be arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Officer about existence of the ground on which the election is sought to be set aside, must be based on some material produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Admittedly, the details of the two invalid ballot papers allegedly counted as valid in favour of the returned candidate have not been specified in the election petition and no material was placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer to substantiate the allegations that the two invalid ballot papers were reckoned as valid in favour of the returned candidate. The allegation that the counting staff was nobbled with bribe by the candidate is too vague without there being any prima facie evidence in this regard. In the circumstan ces therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed with liberty reserved to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass afresh orders allowing inspection and recounting of bal lot papers after the parties have led evidence in the case. It goes without saying that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the election petition expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;