Sardar Ali Khan, J. 1. Writ appeals Nos. 1061 and 1099 of 1983 has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7043 of 1983. 2. Writ appeal No. 1061 of 1983 has been filed by the respondent in W. P. No. 7043 of 1983 praying inter alia, that the judgment under appeal by virtue of which the writ petitioner was declared elected to the post of Sarpanch of Nampally Gram Panchayat in Nalgonda District be set aside. Writ Appeal number 1099 of 1983 has been filed by the Writ Petitioner himself on the ground that the writ petition should not have been allowed merely on the ground of invalidation of 11 ballot papers as such, and the learned single Judge should have taken into consideration all the other submissions made by the Writ Petitioner and allowed the appeal on all the other grounds urged in the Writ Petition. In both the writ appeals the subject matter of dispute is the same and common questions of fact and law arise which can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. In order to appreciate the main point of controversy arising in this case, it would be in the fitness of things to refer briefly to the facts arising for the filing of the writ petition. The writ petitioner Nakka Veladri Ramulu was elected as Sarpanch of Nampally Gram Panchayat on 4-6-1981. He secured 604 votes as against the 582 votes secured by Sama Venkata Reddy, Respondent No. 1. The total electoral for this Gram Panchayat was 1757 as evidenced by the rolls of election. Out of these, 1501 voters exercised their votes on 4-6-1981. There were in all three contestants. The petitioner, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 who secured only 281 votes. After the declaration of the results of the election, the petitioner claims to have assumed charge of the office as Sarpanch and started functioning as such. However, the 1st respondent who had secured the next highest 582 votes filed an election petition questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. In the election petition numbered as O. P. No. 4 of 1981, it was alleged that the election of Nakka Veladri Ramulu as Sarpanch of the Nampally Gram Panchayat be set aside, and that the election petitioner be declared as elected. The allegations made in O. P. No. 4. 1981 briefly are that the Respondent No. 3 who is the Election Officer of the Nampally Gram Panchayat has declared some votes as spoiled votes even though there are clear and visible markings on the symbols. Furthermore, he has wrongly allotted some vas in favour of Nakka Veladri Ramulu contrary to the rules and Regulations in force. It is also alleged the scrutiny and recount of the ballot-papers is necessary in this case to do justice between the parties. In fact the election petitioner expressed his full confidence that he will get a majority of votes if the recount of the ballot papers is ordered. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, the allegations contained in the election petition are traversed and it was asserted that since the election petitioner had not filed any objection petition for recount before the Election Officer at the time of counting of votes, he cannot raise that question at this belated stage. It is also stated that it is false to suggest that there are visible markings on the symbols of the Election Petitioner which have been wrongly allotted to the Respondent No. 1. 4. It is on record to show that on 24-1-1983 Sri Ravi Chenchaiah, Advocate for the writ petitioner who is the respondent in the election petition, made an endorsement on I. A. No. 350 of 1982 in O. P. No. 4 of 1981 stating that he has no objection for recounting of votes. Hence I. A. No. 350 of 1982 was allowed and votes were recalculated in the presence of Advocates of both sides and also the parties on 28-1-1983 acrd were subsequently seated in the presence of the parties and their Advocates on the same date. After several adjournments the final recounting was taken up by the Election Tribunal on 18-8-1983 in the presence of both the parties and their counsel. Head Clerk, one/Civil-side clerk and an Attender. There are 10 wards in Nampally Gram Panchayat and there are ten sealed covers containing voters lists of different wards. The counting of votes in each bundle was taken up by the Election Tribunal and its findings are recorded in the order dated 18-8-1983 passed in I. A. No. 350 of 1982. The Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that in all 29 votes from among the 604 votes polled by the successful candidate are invalid. In the recounting, it is seen, the Election Tribunal has given reasons for invalidating 18 votes on the ground that they contain double markings out of the total number of 29 votes which are supposed to be invalid. However as far as the votes in the first bundle containing 100 votes polled for and Balance symbol bearing the marks (1) L. No. 710931, (2) L. No. 710930, (3) L. No. 710903, (4) L. No. 710554, and (5) L. N. 710161 are concerned no reasons are given but they are held to be invalid. Similarly the votes contained in the 4th bundle containing 100 votes, the following ballot papers viz., (1) L. No. 710740, (2) L. No. 7140737, (3) L. No. 710325, (4) L. No. 710354 (5) L. No. 710638 and (6) L. No. 710777 were held to he invalid and no reasons were recorded as such by the Election Tribunal. As stated earlier the rest of the 18 votes were held to be invalid as they were carrying double markings. One vote given to the symbol Cup and Saucer was allotted to the Balance symbol. Eventually, the Election Tribunal held that the total votes polled in favour of the candidate having the symbol of Balance is 575+1 i. e., 576 whereas the total number of votes polled by the candidate contesting on the symbol of Parrot is 582 votes. Since the symbol of Parrot assigned to the Election Petitioner has a majority of six votes over the candidate who contested on the Symbol of Balance, he was declared elected and the election of 1st respondent was set aside. The order of the Election Tribunal dated 22-8-1983 in O.P No. 4 of 1981 following the decision already given is I. A. No. 350 of 1982 dated 18-8-1983 was challenged in the W. P. No. 7403 (sic) of 1983. 5. It is, however, significant to note at this juncture that in I. A. No. 350 of 1982 filed in O. P. No. 4 of 1981 an endorsement has been made on behalf the respondent therein clearly stating that the respondent has no objection for recounting of votes. Moreover, a the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in O. P. No. 4 of 1981, it is stated in para (4) that: "this respondent has no objection for further scrutiny of the said ballots in the presence of this Honble Court and if in fact these votes are going to materially alter the election result, the petitioner will be entitled to declaration of his election as Sarpanch." 6. Similarly in Para (7) of the Counter-affidavit, it is stated as follows:- "In fact this respondent would secure more votes than what he got if recounting of votes is ordered. This respondent is fully aware (that) so many marginal votes which were cast in favour of this respondent and to which this respondent entitled on strict scrutiny of the votes declared as invalid by the election officer." 7. In view of the endorsement made by the Advocate for the respondent on I. A. No. 350 of 1982 and the statements contained in the counter-affidavit which have been reproduced above, the recounting of votes was taken up by the Election Tribunal. 8. The writ Petition No. 703(sic) of 1983 was allowed mainly on the ground that in all 29 votes have been declared as invalid by the Election Tribunal from among 604 votes polled by the writ petitioner. The Election Tribunal has given one reason or other for invalidating 18 votes but no reasons were given for the remaining 11 votes which were originally counted in favour of the writ petitioner. Since no reasons are given for invalidating these 11 votes they should be counted in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, it was held that the total votes polled in favour of Sri. N.V.Ramulu are not 576 but should be 576+11=587 votes, which is more than 582 votes, secured by Sri Sama Venkata Reddy. In this view of the matter it was held that even on recounting the writ petitioner Sri. N.V.Ramulu has polled majority of votes and, therefore, his election ought not to have been set aside. The impugned order in O. P. No. 4 of 1981 was set aside as being palpably unsustainable and was accordingly quashed. It is against this order passed in W. P. No. 7403. (sic) of 1983 these two writ appeals have been filed. Writ Appeal No. 1061 of 1983 has been filed by the Respondent in W. P. 7403 (sic) of 1983 praying for setting aside of the judgment under appeal and W. A. No. 1099 of 1983 has been filed by the writ petitioner himself on the ground that the writ petition should have been allowed not merely on the ground of invalidation of 11 votes but on all the other grounds urged in the writ petition. 9. When the matter came up before a Bench of this Court on 28-12-1983 the following orders were passed:- "In the presence of the counsel for both the parties we opened the sealed covers containing the ballot papers and traced bundle Nos. 1 and 4 referred in the order of the Election Tribunal - District Munsif, Devarakonda dated 18-8-1983. In Bundel Number 1 we found five ballot papers held to be invalid and they are; L. No 710931, L. No. 710931, L. No. 710903, L. No. 71954 and L. No. 710161. On examination in the presence of both the counsel, it is found that these are votes polled for the Balance symbol and there is double marking on each of these ballots. In bundle No. 4 the following ballot papers are found: L. No. 710740, L. No. 710737, L. No. 710325, L. No. 710354, L. No. 710638 and L. No. 710777. On examination in the presence of both the counsel it is found presence of both the counsel it is found that there are votes polled for the Balance symbol and there is double marking on each of these votes. Mr. M.K. Choudary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant, contends that the seals were tampered with and the mark which was not put by the voter was put after the ballot papers were received in the Court and he wants to address arguments on that point and also on some other points. If this case is taken up, there is no possibility of the hearing being concluded before closure of the Court for Sankranti Vacation. The writ appeals shall be posted for hearing on the re-opening day, 16-1-1984 as part-heard cases. Although the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. K. Venkataramaiah requested that how that the ballot papers have been scrutinised and prima facie it is found that they bear double markings which render them invalid, the order under appeal should be suspended. We are disinclined to go into that matter as we have already directed the writ appeals to be posted for hearing on 16-1-1984." It is evident from a reading of the order dated 28-12-1983 passed by a Bench of this Court that it has been categorically held that in bundle No. 1 the ballot papers bearing Nos. L. No. 710931, L. No. 710930, L. No. 710903, L. No. 71054 and L. No. 710161 contained double markings on each of these votes. It has been further held that bundle No. 4 containing ballot papers bearing Nos. L. No. 710740, L. No. 710737, L. No. 710325, L. No. 710354, L. No. 710638 and L. No. 710777 also contained double markings on each of these votes. However, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant in W. A. No. 1099 of 1983, Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, raised the contention that he wants to argue in detail about the tampering of seals and on some other points, the writ appeals were posted for hearing on 16-1-1984 as part-heard cases. The order under appeal was, however, not suspended in view of the fact that the appeals were posted for hearing on 16-1-1984. On 19-1-1984 the same Division Bench of this Court passed an order in the following terms:- "Do not treat as part heard. Post the writ appeals on Monday 23-1-1984 for final hearing before another Bench as first case after part-heard cases. Our order dated 28-12-1983 is clear that the appellants (in W. A. No. 1061/83) request for suspension of the judgment under appeal was neither allowed nor rejected. Only having regard to the fact that the writ appeals were directed to be posted for hearing on 16-1-1984, we are not inclined to go into that matter. The learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that this may be considered as rejecting his request for suspension. We therefore make it clear that the order does not stand in the way of the appellant making a request appeals are posted. In post W. A. M. P. No. 1900 of 1983 in W. A. No. 1061 of 1983 is not disposed of". 10. It was made clear in this order that the request for suspension of judgement under appeal may be made again at the relevant time before the Bench before whom the writ appeals are posted. 11. The main contention raised at the time of final hearing of these writ appeals by the learned counsel for the appellant in W. A. No. 1099 of 1983, Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, is that the election tribunal committed a grave error in ordering recounting of votes, for there is no need for the same and the recounting has been ordered contrary to the well-established principle of law as laid down by the various judgments of the Supreme Court. In this connection he placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 206. In this case the Supreme Court held that the relief of recounting cannot be granted merely on the possibility of there being an error. It is well settled that such allegations must not only be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence. The fact that the margin of votes by which the successful candidate was declared as elected was very narrow, though, undoubtedly an important factor to be considered, would not by itself vitiate, the counting of votes or justify recounting by the Court The. Supreme Court proceeded to lay down certain principles on the basis of which a recount of the ballot papers may be ordered, which are in the following terms. "(1) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegation of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded. (2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting: and (3) The court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. 12. Now applying the principles laid down in this decision of the Supreme Court the first thing which has to be noted is that the margin of votes by which the successful candidate was elected is very narrow indeed in this case. The successful candidate who is the writ petitioner was declared elected as he secured 604 votes against his nearest rival, Respondent No. 1, who is said to have polled 582 votes. The margin of victory is therefore only 22 votes as such. This by itself is not a conclusive factor to order recounting of votes in a given case, but as stated by the Supreme Court this is a very relevant factor to be taken into consideration for ordering of a recounting of the ballot papers. Secondly a reading of the election petition filed as O. P. No. 4 of 1981 reveals that several allegation have been made about the wrong allotment of votes to the Respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the maternal facts alleged therein, the first prayer made in the election petition is for the recount of the ballot papers. Moreover, it remains as a point of incontrovertible nature that in I. A. No. 350 of 1982 it was alleged that the Respond-declared some votes as spoiled votes even though there are clear and visible markings on the symbol and the same were wrongly allotted to Respondent No. 1 contrary to the Rules and Regulations applicable in this case. In view of this alleged irregularity committed by the Election Officer, the petitioner in I. A. No. 350 of 1982 expressed his confidence that he will succeed in the case if the recounting of ballot papers is ordered by the Election Tribunal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in I.A. No. 350/82 it is stated that the averments of the petitioners affidavit are not correct and that the petitioner should have filed an objection petition for a recount of votes to the Election Officer at the time of counting of the votes. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent that there is no procedure for recounting of votes by the Election Tribunal and the petitioner has falsely stated that there are visible markings on the symbols in his favour and they were wrongly allotted to the respondent No. 1. However the fact remains that the counsel for the respondent No. 1 in I. A. No. 350/82 has endorsed on the said application itself in the following terms: "I have no objection for recounting of votes. Sd/-XX, 24-1-1983" Consequently on 24-1-1983 the Election Tribunal passed the orders stating that- "The advocate for the respondent endorsed that he has no objection for recounting of votes. Hence the petition is allowed. The votes will be recounted before the Head Clerk, Munsif-Magistrates court on 28-1-1983 at 9 a.m. in the presence of Advocates for parties and the parties, Petitioner present and informed." Added to this endorsement is the statement contained in the counter-affidavit filed in the main O. P. No. 4/81 by the respondent, which has been extracted elsewhere in this judgment, according to which the respondent has clearly stated that he has no objection for recounting of votes. In fact he has gone a step further and stated that the recounting of votes is necessary in this case, to justify his claim that he will secure more votes than what had been actually assigned to him. In the fact of the endorsement on I. A. No. 350 of 1982 and the statement in the counter-affidavit, it is not now open for the appellant in W. A. No. 1099 of 1983 to argue before this court that the recounting should not have been allowed by the Election Tribunal. There is nothing in the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above to show that in the given circumstances the order of recounting by the Election Tribunal was wrong. On the other hand it is felt that in view of the narrow margin of votes in this election and the fact that both the sides were keen on recounting of votes, as evidenced by the record in this case, the choice before the Election Tribunal was a very limited one indeed. It is too late in the day for anyone to urge that the endorsement made by the Advocate should have been overlooked, and that the statements contained in the counter-affidavit conceding a demand for recounting of votes is also of no consequence and that the Election Tribunal has misguided itself in allowing the petition for recounting of votes. The only observation which can be made on this aspect of the matter is that there is no force in the contention that the action of the Advocate does not bind the parties and that the statements contained in the counter-affidavit are of no consequence. To say the least to agree with such a contention raised in this regard would be against all the accepted norms of justice and fair play and the well-established procedure to be followed by the Courts. 13. In Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1249, it was held that the Election Tribunal has been the power to direct discovery and inspection of the documents within the narrow limits of Order 11, of the Civil Procedure Code Inspection of documents under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code may be ordered under Rule 15 of documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the affidavit or documents of the other party, and under Rule 18 (2) of other documents in the possession of power of the other party. It was further observed that an order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course. Having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled. (1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case, and (2) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. It goes without saying that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this decision are with regard to the question of inspection of ballot papers within the narrow limits of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code Nevertheless, the principles laid down are similar to those which have been referred to earlier in the decision in N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 206) (supra) in connection with the recounting of the votes. In both theses cases the plea of recounting and the inspection of ballot papers was keenly contested by the respondents, whereas in this case the respondent has agreed whole-heartedly to the recounting of the votes. The case of both the sides in this matter before us has been that recounting is imperative to do complete justice between the parties. 14. In C. Subbarao v. K.B.Reddy, AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 155 it was observed that inspection or scrutiny of ballot papers may be granted only if there is sufficient basis for the plea in the pleadings and further a prima facie case is made out, and if the court thinks it necessary in the interests of justice to order the same. The principle thus is well settled that unless a strong and prima facie case is made out, the order of inspection cannot be granted nor scrutiny be made. The secrecy of the ballot papers prescribed by Sections 94 and 128 (1) of the Representation of the People Act is sacrosanct and must be kept in tact. It is obvious that the principle laid down in this case also follows the one which has been referred to in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai, (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1249). There is every justification to hold that sufficient basis exist in the light of the pleadings adduced by both the parties in this case to order a recounting of the votes. In fact there has been no controversy between the parties in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, which clearly proves the point that there is prima facie case made out for recounting of votes by both the parties. Moreover, in order to adjudicate the dispute in the election petition completely and effectually it became imperative for the Election Tribunal to order a recounting of the votes. 15. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that in accordance with Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1978, relating to the conduct of election of Members, Sarpanchs and Upa-Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats, the election has to be enquired into by the Election Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to the trial of suits. Rule 55 of the said Rules is as follows:- "55 (1) Every election petition shall be enquiry into by the election Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to the trial of suits: Provided that it shall only be necessary for the election Court to make it a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by it. (2) The election Court shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witness and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of documents; (d) examining witness on oath; (e) receipt of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses summoning and examining Suo Motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material." There cannot be any quarrel with the principle that the election petition has to be enquired into by the election Court as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is difficult to imagine how this principle can be stretched to support contention that the election tribunal in this case ought not to have taken up I. A. No. 350 of 1982 for recounting of Votes before the settlement of issues. What has happened in this case is that an application was filed for recounting of votes to which a counter was filed and later on it was conceded that the recounting is essential to do justice between the parties. It cannot, therefore, be said that the principle laid down in Rule 55 of the said Rules is in any way violated and that the action of the Election Tribunal is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code 1908, which is held to be applicable in election cases in so far as it is possible do so. 16. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the provisions of Rule 59, sub-rule (2) of the same Rules which is in the following terms :- "59 (2): Where at an enquiry into an election petition any candidate, other than a returned candidate, claims seat the for himself, the returned candidate or candidates or any other party to the proceeding may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been returned candidate and petition had been presented complaining of his election." It is not difficult to see that the principle enumerated in Rule 59 (2) has nothing to do with the controversy that is arising in this case. Under the provisions of Rule 59 (2) it is provided that where at an enquiry into an election petition any candidate, other than a returned candidate, claims a seat for himself, it is open for the returned candidate or any other party to the proceeding to give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate who claims to be a returned candidate would have been void had a petition to that effect been presented before the election tribunal there is no eventuality arising in this case to warrant the application of Rule 59 (2) of the said Rules. It is, therefore evident that there is every reason to uphold the decision of the Election Tribunal in ordering recount of the ballot papers which was demanded by both sides in this case. Moreover, as stated earlier, a Bench of this Court after a full consideration of the matter has already held that the six votes in Bundle No. 1 and 5 Votes in Bundle No. 4 contain double markings. In view of the finding arrived at by a Bench of this Court we need not have gone afresh in that matter again. However, in view of the strenuous arguments advanced on this aspect of the matter by the learned counsel for the writ appellant in W. A. No. 1061 of 1983, we have once again examined the said ballot papers in the presence of the counsel of both sides, and have later on handed them sealed with the seal of the Court in the presence of counsel. We do not find any reason whatsoever to disagree from the earlier finding of the Division Bench in this regard in the order dated 28-12-1983. Consequently we have no hesitation in holding that the 11 ballot papers referred by numbers therein do contain double markings and are, therefore, liable to be deleted from the 604 votes polled by the writ petitioner. 17. The only other argument advanced by the learned counsel in W. A. number 1099/83, which may be mentioned briefly, is about the maintainability of the writ appeals. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel is that the Letters-patent appeal is to be viewed as an imperial device producing inter-Court appeals in the cases heard in original side civil jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts through a single Judge of that High Court and all other appeals are provided in a different manner. Hence, it is argued that the Letters-Patent appeal is not contemplated under the Constitution of India with reference to a power exercised by a single Judge under Article 226. Under Section 2 (d) of the Andhra State Act, 1953, the term law has been defined as follows:- "2 (d) "Law" includes any enactment ordinance regulation order, bye-law, rule, scheme notification or other instrument having the force of law in the whole or in any part of the State of Madras or Mysore as constituted immediately before the appointed day." It is well-settled that this definition takes in its ambit and scope the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent also. Under Section 30 of the Andhra State Act, 1953 the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra extends to all the territories for the time being included in the State of Andhra and other jurisdiction as was exercisable under the law force immediately before the prescribed date by the High Court of Madras. It cannot therefore, be argued that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act from a judgement of a single Judge of this Court (vide AIR 1952 Madras 300 and AIR 1953 Calcutta 179). 18. In the result, the judgement of the single Judge in W. P. No. 7403 of 1983 is set aside and the writ appeal No. 1061 of 1983 is allowed and the Writ Appeal No. 1099 of 1983 is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the there is no order as to costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250/- 19. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. M.R.K.Choudary, makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this case. The oral application for leave is, therefore, rejected. 20. The judgment and order shall stand suspended for a period of fifteen days from today, in order to enable the respondent to approach the Supreme Curt meanwhile, if he so desires, and obtain appropriate orders. In case no appropriate orders are obtained within this period of fifteen days, the judgment shall come into operation. Order accordingly.