REKHA RANAversusJAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.

                        (2009] 11 S.C.R. 20
                                                                     "
A                          REKHA RANA
                                 v.
                   JAIPAL $HARMA AND ORS.
                  (Civil App~al No. 5891 of 2008)
                           JULY 10, 2009
B
                [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

       Election Law - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 -
  ss. 94 and 62 - Principles of "secrecy of ballot" and "purity of
C election" - Election petition filed challenging election of
  appellant - Allegation made that a large number of void
  votes had been cast in favour of appellant by impersonation
  - On application filed' by election petitioner, in course of
  recording of evidence, directlon passed by High Court for de-
D sealing of marked electoral rolls in order to put the same
  before a cited witness - Direction challenged - Held: On facts,
  inspection of marked electoral rolls was essential for
  determination of the issue raised by the election petitioner and
  did not impinge on "secrecy of ballot" principle as alleged -
E In any event, challenge not t~nable when tested on the.
  touchstone of "purity of election" principle - Twin conditions
  as contemplated in r. 93 for inspection of documents were also
  satisfied - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - r.93.

       Appellant was declared elected in the Assembly
F Constituency elections. Respondent no.1 filed election
  petition challenging the election of ~ppellant, mainly on
  the ground that the appellant was beneficiary of a large
  number of void votes cast -in her favour by .
  impersQnation. Later, in course of recording of evidence,
G Respondent no.1 filed application seeking a direction for
  opening of sealed marked electoral rolls in order to put
  the same to a cited witness. The application was allowed
  by the High Court by an interlocutory order which was

H                                20
          REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.               21

-f
      challenged in the present appeal.                            A

           It was contended by the appellant that the High Court
      committed a serious error of law in directing de-sealing
      of the marked electoral rolls inasmuch as the inspection
      thereof would result in the infringement of the principle
                                                                   B
      of "secrecy of ballot", so sacrosanct to the electoral
      process and that a mere assertion in the election petition
      that a large number of void votes had been cast in favour
      of the appellant by resorting to impersonation was not
      sufficient to allow inspection of any document in terms
      of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.           c
          Dismissing the appeal, the Co4rt

            HE;LD: 1.1. The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
       is a self coi;itained C-otfe on the subject of elections. D
       "Secrecy of Ballot" as provided in Section 94 of the Act
       wa;> mooted "to ensure free and fair elections". The
       Section provides that except in a case of voting by open
       ballot, no witness or other person shall be required to
      state for whom he has voted. The underlying object of the
      provision is to assure a voter that he would not be · E
      compelled, directly or indirectly, by any authority to
      disclose as to for whom he has voted, so that he may vote
      without fear or favour and is free from any apprehension
      of its disclosure against his will from his own lips. The
      Section confers a privilege on the voter to protect him F
      both in the Court when he is styled as a witness and
      outside the Court when he may be questioned about
      how he voted. This precisely is the principle of "secrecy
      of ballot", which has always been the hallmark of the
      concept of free and fair election, so very essential in the G
      democratic principles adopted by our polity. It is an
 ~·
      indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. [Paras 9
      and 10] [28-E-H; 29-A-C; 29-F; 30-8]

                                                                   H
    22      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 11 S.C.R.
                                                                           .....
                                                                     )-
A     1.2. Any interpretation of Section 94 of the Act must
  essentially subserve the purpose for which it is enacted.
  The interpretative process must advance the basic
  postulate of free and fair election for setting up
  democratic institution and not retard it. Section 94 cannot
B be interpreted divorced from the constitutional values
  enshrined in the Constitution. Out of the two competing ·
  principles, the "purity of election" principle must have its
                                                                     '>-
  way and that the "rule of secrecy", as contemplated in
  Section 94 of the Act, cannot be pressed into service to
c suppress   a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud
  on the election process. [Paras 10 and 11] [29-D-E; 31-A-
  B]

      S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors.
  1980 Supp. SCC 53 and A. Neelalohitadasan Nadar Ii.
D George Mascrene & Ors. 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 619, relied on.

        Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kami/ Kidwai AIR 1964
    SC1249 and Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh (1973) 2 SCC
    599, referred to.
E
        2.1. The case of the election petitioner, pleaded in the
  election petition, is that a number of votes had been cast
  by impersonating electors, who were either not available
  in the constituency on the date of election or had died            ~·
  much prior to the date of election or were serving jail
F sentences or were abroad on the relevant date. The
  factum of casting of votes by a particular elector could
  be proved only on the basis of marked electoral rolls.
  More so, when the names of the voters who were alleged
  to have double voted or have died etc., were specifically
G mentioned in the election petition. From marked electoral
  rolls, it is only possible to ascertain whether or not a vote
  had been cast in the name of a voter from a particular           -:\.    ..,,____

  poling booth but it is never possible to decipher
  therefrom as to who is the beneficiary of the said vote as
H there is no indication on the electoral roll showing for                  ~
                                                                            )-

                                                                              ~
                 REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS .                 23
•
    ~t
              whom the voter had cast his vote. The marked electoral         A
              roll is maintained primarily for the purpose of identifying
              the elector and as such, one fails to see how its
              production would impair the 'secrecy of ballot' principle.
              Accordingly the contention raised that the impugned
              direction infringed the principle of "secrecy of ballot" and   8
              therefore it was bad in law, is rejected. [Para 13] [31-C-G]

     -(            2.2. Having regard to the nature of allegation, the
              contention of the appellant must also fail when tested on
              the touchstone of the "purity of election" principle. Sub~
              Sections (4) and (5) of Section 62 of the Act respectively
                                                                             c
              bar double voting and voting by a person who is confined
              in a prison for any reason and a vote cast by any such
              person shall be void. The exercise of extrication of void
              votes under Section 62(4) of the Act would not in any
              manner impinge on the "secrecy of ballot", especially          D
    -f.
              when void votes are those which have to be treated as
              no votes at all. "Secrecy of ballot" principle pre-supposes
              a validly cast vote, the sanctity and sacrosanct of which
              must in all events be preserved. Therefore, on the
              pleadings of the parties, a case for inspection of the         E
              marked electoral roll had been made out. [Para 14] [31-
              G-H; .32-A-C]

      ~            3.1. Inspection under Rule 93 of the Conduct of
              Election Rules, 1961 can be allowed only when the              F
              following two conditions are satisfied: (i) The material
              facts on the basis of which inspection of documents is
              sought, must be clearly and specifically pleaded; and (ii)
              The Court must be satisfied on evidence, even if in the
              form of affidavit, that it is necessary to allow inspection
                                                                             G
              in the interest of justice. However, the· inspection of the
              documents mentioned in sub-rule(1) of Rule 93 cannot
          ~
              be allowed as a matter of course and a prayer for


4
(
              inspection must be refused by the Court if it is satisfied
              that in the garb of inspection, a defeated candidate is
                                                                             H
    24      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A indulging in a roving enquiry in order to fish out materials
  for getting the election set aside. Nevertheless, if precise
  allegations of material facts are available on record and
  the Court is satisfied that inspection of the documents is
  necessary to determine the issue arising for the decision
B in the case as also in the interest of justice, then the
  Court must exercise its power under the said rule to allow
  inspection. Recording of reasons in either of the two
  situations is a pre-requisite for exercise of power under
  the said Rule. [Para 15] [32-F-H; 33-A-C]
c      3.2. In the instant case, the e·lection petitioner has
  specifically mentioned the names of the persons who
  had been impersonated or had double voted. Moreover,
  while dealing with the preliminary issues, the High Court
  had recorded a categorical finding that the election
D petitioner had placed on record sufficient material to
  substantiate the allegations made in the election petition.
  In view of the said finding, there is no substance in the
  contention that the twin conditions as contemplated in
  Rule 93 were not satisfied. [Para 16] [33-0-F]
E
       Hari Ram v. Hira Singh & Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 36, referred
  to.
                        Case Law Reference:

F        AIR 1964 SC1249         referred to         Para 6
         (1984) 2 sec 36         referred to         Para 6
         1994 Supp. (2) sec 619 relied on            Para 7
         (1973) 2 sec 599        referred to         Para 7
G
         1980 Supp. SCC 53       relied on           Para 10

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5891 of 2008.

H        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.07.2007 of the High
                     REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.                    25

     -(
               Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C. M. 2E of 2007        A
               in Election Petition No. 1 of 2005.

                  Vijay Hansaria, Nagendra Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Aslam
               Sammani for the Appellants.

                   P.S. Patwalia, Vikas Mahajan, Vishal Mahajan, Vined            B
               Sharma, Amanpreet Singh Rahi, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra and
         ""(   Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni (NP) for the Respondents.

                     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                               I

                     D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal by special leave
                                                                                  c
               is to an interlocutory order dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the
               High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No.
               2E of 2007 in Election Petition No. 1 of 2005. By the impugned
               order, the High Court has allowed the application preferred by
                                                                                D
     l         respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the election
               petitioner") seeking a direction for opening of sealed marked
               electoral rolls in order to put the same to a witness summoned
               by him.

                    2. Election to Gharaunda Assembly Constituency was held       E
 /
               on 3rd February, 2005 and the appellant herein was declared
               as elected by a margin of 21 votes over the election petitioner,
               who got the second highest number of votes. While the appellant
               secured 25,237 votes, the election petitioner got 25,216 votes.
               The other eligible contestants,.who are all party respondents in   F
               this appeal, got Insignificant number of votes.
                 (

                     3. The election of the appellant was challenged by the
               election petitioner, mainly on the ground that the appellant was
               the beneficiary of a large number of void votes cast in her favour
                                                                                   G
               by impersonation. In nutshell, the allegation was that: (i) 96
               voters had cast their votes twice during the process of polling;
         ./:
               (ii) 29 votes had been cast in favour of the appellant by way of
               impersonation, on behalf of the persons who were not available
               in the constituency on tbe date of polling; (iii) 53 votes had been
'~                                                                                11
    26        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A    cast in favour of the appellant by way of impersonation on behalf
     of the persons who had died prior to the date of polling; and
     (iv) 10 votes had been cast in favour of the appellant by way of
     impersonation on behalf of two' persons who were serving
     sentences in jail and on behalf of eight persons who were
s    abroad on the date of polling. The election petition, obviously,
     was contested by the appellant. Upon consideration of
     pleadings, six issues were framed. The first three issues viz.,
     (i) whether the election petition does not disclose a cause of
     action, if so, its effect?; (ii) whether the election petition lacks
c    in material facts and is liable to be dismissed .on this ground?;
     and (iii) whether allegations made in para No.4 raise a triable
    issue?, were ordered to be treated as "preliminary" issues. Vide
     order dated 3rd July, 2006, all the said issues were decided in
     favour of the election petitioner and against the appellant.
D        4. In the course of recording of evidence of one of the cited      .1-
    witnesses (PW2,1 ), counsel for the election petitioner desired
    the witness to make a statement after opening the marked
    electoral rolls, which were available in the court but in sealed
    covers. This was objected to by counsel for the appellant on the
E   ground that till a specific order was passed by the court in that
    behalf, the marked electoral rolls could not be opened, which
    resulted in filing of a miscellaneous application, on which the
    impugned order has been passed.

F         5. Briefly taking note of the evidence already led by the
    election petitioner, the High Court has observed in the impugned
    order that in the election petition, the election petitioner has
    expressed the basis of his claim ~o the minutest details in terms
    of the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
G   (for short "the Act") as well as the Conduct of Election Rules,
    1961 (for short "the Rules"); the pleadings are supported by an
    affidavit in consonance with Rule· 94-A of the Rules; the evidence
    recorded on behalf of the election petitioner so far is in
    consonance with the pleadings and therefore, it is not a case
    where the election petitioner is intending to have a roving
H
      REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.                       27
                   [D.K. JAIN, J.]
 enquiry so as to fish out material for raising a challenge to the      A
 election of the appellant. The Court felt that the ultimate truth in
 respect of clear allegations levelled by the election petitioner
 can only be arrived at on the basis of the marked electoral rolls.
 Finally, recording its satisfaction that it is a fit case where the
 prayer made by the election petitioner for leading evidence on         B
 the basis of the marked electoral rolls deserves to be allowed
 and by grant of the said prayer, the norm of "secrecy of ballot"
 would not be violated, as noted earlier, the Court has directed
 the opening of the sealed marked electoral rolls. Hence the
 present appeal.                                                        c
     6. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the High Court has
committed a serious error of law in directing de-sealing of the
marked electoral rolls inasmuch as the inspection thereof would
result in the infringement of the principle of "secrecy of ballot",     D
so sacrosanct to the electoral process. It was argued that a
mere assertion in the election petition that a large number of
void votes had been cast in favour of the appellant by resorting
to impersonation was not sufficient to allow inspection of any
document in terms of Rule 93 of the Rules. In support of the            E
proposition that an order for inspection cannot be granted as
a matter of course and the Election Tribunal must record its
satisfaction about the necessity of inspection, which, in the
present case, the High Court has failed to do, reliance was
placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Sewak Yadav Vs.             F
Hussain Kami/ Kidwai1 • Relying on another decision of this
Court in Hari Ram Vs. Hira Singh & Ors. 2 learned counsel
stressed that inspection of the electoral rolls is to be allowed
very sparingly and only when it is absolutely essential to
determine the issue.                   ·                                G

    7. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the election petitioner, while supporting
1.   AIR 1964 SC 1249.
2.   (1984) 2 sec 36.                                                   H
    28         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 11 S.C.R.

                                                                           ~
A    the im_pugned order, at the outset, pointed out that order dated
     3rd July, 2006 passed by the High Court, deciding all the three
     aforenoted preliminary issues in favour of the election petitioner
     shows that all material }acts required to be pleaded in an
    election petition had been clearly stated. It was submitted that
B    in the said order, the High Court had. in very clear terms
     observed that in the ·present case, the election petitioner had
     disclosed, as far as possible, all material facts on the basis of
    which he wished to authenticate the allegations levelled by him
     against the appellant; the allegations levelled in the election
c    petition were clear and precise and will afford the appellant an
     adequate opportunity to controvert them. It was thus, submitted
     that in view of the aforenoted findings, the satisfaction recorded
     by the High Court that inspection of the electoral rolls was
    essential for determination of the issue raised by the election
     petitioner was based on cogent and adequate material and
D                                                                           }-
    therefore, no fault could be found therewith. Asserting that on
    the facts of the instant case, in the inspection of electoral rolls
    there is no element of breach of "secrecy of ballot" principle,
    learned counsel submitted that in any event, the interest of
    "purity of ballot" must prevail over "secrecy of ballot". In support
E
    of the proposition, learned counsel relied on a three Judge
    Bench decision of this Court in A. Neelalohitadasan Nadar Vs.
    George Mascrene & Ors. 3 • To buttress his stand that Section
    83(1)(a) of the Act contemplates only giving of a concise              ~·
    statement of the material facts on which the election petitioner
F   relies, learned counsel pressed in aid the decision of this Court
    in Manphu/ Singh Vs. Surinder Singh4 •

        8. In the backdrop of the above submissi'ons, the first
    question for consideration is as to what exactly is the underlying
G   object, scope and ambit of the doctrine of "secrecy of ballot"
    as enshrined in Section 94 of the Act?
                                                                                 ,
          9. Section 94 of the Act provides that except in a case of
                                                                           +.    ....
    3.   1994 Supp (2)  sec 619.
H   4.   (1973) 2   sec 599.
                REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.                    29
                             [D.K. JAIN, J.]
    -1    voting by open ballot, no witness or other person shall be A
          required to state for whom he has voted. The underlying object
          of the provision is .to assure a voter that he would not be
          compelled, directly or indirectly, by any authority to disclose as
          to for whom he has voted, so that he may vote without fear or
          favour and is free from any apprehension of its disclosure B
          against his will from his own lips. The Section confers a
          privilege on the voter to protect him both in the Court when he
          is styled as a witness and outside the Court when he may be
          questioned about how he voted. This precisely is the principle
          of "secrecy of ballot". The "secrecy of ballot" has always been c
          the hallmark of the concept of free and fair election, so very
          esseniial in the democratic principles adopted by our polity. It
          undoubtedly i$ an indispensable adjunct of free and fair
          elections.       -
                10. The true scope and ambit of the doctrine of "secrecy D
    -~
          of ballot" was lucidly elaborated by this Court in S. Raghbir
           Singh Gill Vs. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors. 5 • It was
          observed that any interpretation of Section 94 of the Act must
          essentially subserve the purpose for which it is enacted. The
          interpretative process must advance the basic postulate of free E
          and fair election for_s-etting up democratic institution and not
          retard it. Section 94 cannot be interpreted divorced from the
          constitutional values enshrined in the Constitution. Expressing
     ~·   the view that "Secrecy of Ballot" as provided in Section 94 of
          the Act, was mooted "to ensure free and fair elections", the F
          Court opined thus:

                "If the very secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and
                fair elections strikes at the root of the principle of free and
                fair elections this basic postulate of democracy would be
                utilised for undoing free and fair elections which provide ~
               :life-blood to parliamentary democracy. If secrecy of ballot
"    .+         instead of ensuring free and fair elections is used, as is
                done in this case, to defeat the very public purpose for

          5.   1980 Supp. sec 53.                                            H
    30         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A         which it is enacted, to suppress a wrong coming to light            'l-

          and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to
          defend a crime, viz., forgery of ballot papers,- this principle
          of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle
          of free and fair elections."
8
      Noticing that the Act is a self contained Code on the subject of
      elections and reiterating that "there is one fundamental principle
      which permeates through all democratically elected
      parliamentary institutions, viz., to set them up by fr~e and fair
      elections, the Court observed thus:
c
          "The principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in
          isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and
          fair elections, viz., purity of election. They can co-exist but
          as stated earlier, where one is used to destroy the other,
D         the first one must yield to principle of purity of election in
          larger public interest. In fact secrecy of ballot, a privilege        >-
          of the voter, is not inviolable and may be waived by him
          as a responsible citizen of this \:Ountry to ensure free and
          fair election and to unravel foul play".
E
         11. Taking note of the law laid down in Raghbir Singh Gill's
    case (supra) 'with reference to the principle of "secrecy of
    ballot", in A. Neelalohitadasan Nadar (supra), this Court
    observed thus:                                                           . )-

F         "But this right of the voter is not absolute. It must yield to
          the principle of "purity of election" in larger public interest.
          The exercise of extrication of void votes under Section
          62(4) of the Act would not in any manner impinge on the
          secrecy of ballot especially when void votes are those
G .       which have to be treated as no votes at all. "Secrecy of
          ballot" principle pre-supposes a validly cast vote, the
          sanctity and sacrosanct of which must in all events be
          preserved. When it is talked of ensuring free and fair
          elections it is meant elections held on the fundamental
H         foundation of purity and the "secrecy of ballot" as an allied
              REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.                      31
                           [D.K. JAIN, J.]
               -
    -(         vital principle."                                              A

          Thus, the Court reiterated that out of the two competing
          principles, the "purity of election" principle must have its way
          and that the "rule of secrecy", as contemplated in Section 94
          of the Act, cannot be pressed into service to suppress a wrong
                                                                              B
          corning to light and to protect a fraud on the election process.

               12. Having noted the law on the point, the next question
     'i
          requiring adjudication is whether on facts at hand, the impugned
          direction infringes the principle of "secrecy of ballot" and
          therefore, it is bad in law?                                        c
                13. As already noted above, the case of the el,ection
          petitioner, pleaded in the election petition, is that a number of
          votes had been cast by impersonating electors, who were
          either not available in the constituency on the date of election D
    .J,   or had died much prior to the date of election or were serving
          jail sentences or were abroad, on the relevant date. The factum
          of casting of votes by a particular elector could be proved only
          on the basis of marked electoral rolls. More so, when the
          names of the voters who were alleged to have double voted or
                                                                             E
          have died etc., were specifically mentioned in the election
          petition. From a marked electoral rolls, it is only possible to
          ascertain whether or not a vote had been cast in the name of
          a voter from a particular polling booth but it is never possible
          to decipher therefrom as to who is the beneficiary of the said
          vote as there is no indication on the electoral roll showing for F
          whom the voter had cast his vote. It is to be borne in mind that
          the marked electoral roll is maintained primarily for t.he purpose
          of identifying the elector and as such, we fail to see how its
          production would impair the "secrecy of ballot" principle.
          Accordingly, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the G
          appellant on this aspect.
I
      ~
               14. We feel that having regard to the nature of allegation,
          the stand of the appellant must also fail when tested on the
          touchstone of the "purity of election" principle as enunciated in   H
    32           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A   Raghbir Singh Gill's case (supra). Sub-Sections (4) and (5)               ~
    of Section 62 of the Act respectively bar double voting and
    voting by a person who is confined in a prison for any reason
    and a vote cast by any such person shall be void. As observed
    in A. Nee/alohitadasan Nadar's case (supra), the exercise of .
B   extrication of void votes under Section 62(4) of the Act would
    not in any manner impinge on tne "secrecy of ballot", especially
    when void votes are those which have to be treated as no votes
    at all. "Secrecy of ballot" principle pre-supposes a validly cast         r
    vote, the sanctity and sacrosanct of which must in all events be
c   preserved. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the
    High Court that on the pleadings of the parties; a case for
    inspection of the marked electoral roll had been made out. We
    do not find any infirmity in the impugned direction warranting
    our interference. :                ·
D         15. Before closing, we may also deal with the argument
    advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the
    scope of Rule 93. The stand of ·the appellant is that the election
    petition lacks sufficient facts· on the basis whereof the court
    could record the requisite satisfaction as stipulated in the said
E   Rule before ordering inspection of the Electoral Roll. Rule 93
    provides that the documents mentioned in sub-rule (1) thereof
    shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected
    by, or produced before any person or authority except under
    the orders of the competent court. Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1)
F   of Rule 93 refers to marked copy of the Electoral Roll. It is trite
    that inspection under the said Rule can be allowed only when
    the following two conditions are satisfied: ·

          (i)      The material facts on the basis of which inspection
                   of documents is sought, must be clearly and
G
                   specifically pJ,eaded; and

          (ii)     The Court must be satisfied on evidence, even if           ·~
                   in the form qlf affidavit, that it is necessary to allow
                   inspection in the interest of justice. (See: Hari Ram
H
           REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.                      33
                        [D.K. JAIN, J.]
                   Vs. Hira Singh & Ors. 6 )                               A

     It is equally well settled that the inspection of the documents
     mentioned in sub-rule (1) cannot be allowed as a matter of
     course and a prayer for inspection must be refused by the Court
     if it is satisfied that in the garb of inspection, a defeated         8
     candidate is indulging in a roving enquiry in order to fish out
     materials for getting· the election set aside. Nevertheless, if
_,   precise allegations of material facts are available on record
     and the Court is satisfied that inspection of the documents is
     necessary to determine the issue arising for the decision in the      C
     case as also in the interest of justice, then the Court must
     exercise its power under the said rule to allow inspection.
     Needless to emphasise that recording of reasons in either of
     the two situations is a pre-requisite for exercise of power under
     the said Rule.
                                                                           D
           16. In the instant case, as noted earlier, the election
     petitioner has specifically mentioned the names of the persons
     who had been impersonated or had double voted. Moreover,
     while dealing with the three preliminary issues, in its order dated
     3rd July, 2006, the Court had recorded a categorical finding          E
     that the election petitioner had placed on record sufficient
     material to substantiate the allegations made in the election
     petition. In.view of the said finding, we do not find any substance
     in the contention of learned counsel that the twin conditions as
     contemplated in Rule 93 were not satisfied.                           F

          17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any
     nJerit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly with costs.

     8.8.8.                                        Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           G




     6.   (1984) 2 sec 36.                                                 H