Madras High Court
M.Devi vs A.Piriyadarshini : 1St on 14 November, 2024
CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14/11/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.15485 of 2024
M.Devi : Petitioner/4th Respondent
Vs.
1.A.Piriyadarshini : 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Tamil Nadu State
Election Commission,
Jawaharlal Nehru Street,
Koyambedu,
Chennai City,
Rep. by its Chief Election Commissioner
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Maruthu Pandiyar Nagar,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Election Officer,
Block Development Officer,
Sakkottai Panchayat Union,
Sakkottai Town, Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District. : Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1 to 3
PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the
order, dated 23/10/2024 passed in EOP No.27 of 2023 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/56
CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Saravanan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for M/s.B.Rukmani
For R2 to R4 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate
General IV
for Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
O R D E R
This Civil Revision is filed seeking an order to set aside the order, dated 23/10/2024 passed in EOP No.27 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai.
2.The facts in brief in the election petition filed by the 1st respondent herein:-
On 30/12/2019 the election was held for the Village Panchayat in which the election petitioner namely A.Piriyadharshini and the revision petitioner namely M.Devi contested for the President post. Out of 22,599 votes, 11,906 votes were polled, apart from 49 postal votes. Totally 29 voters booths. Counting started on 02/01/2020 at about 08.00 am. The votes were counted in the presence of the contesters and agents as per the procedure. But without counting the ballot box numbers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 48W, 49M and 49F, in a hurried manner Form 25 Declaration Form was issued by the Election Officer namely the 3rd respondent in the election petition in favour of the 4 th respondent (the revision petitioner herein) stating that she secured 300 votes more than that of the election petitioner namely A.Piriyadharshini. Form Nos.22 and 23 were not filled up. Tally was not done by the 3rd respondent (4th respondent herein).
3.So the election petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner through the Election Observer namely Mr.M.Karunakaran, IAS, informed about the malpractices, requested for recounting. On 03/01/2020, the 4th respondent herein ordered recounting of votes. After recounting, it was informed that Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner herein is not valid. The revision petitioner did not accept the same and walked out of the counting centre. After recounting, it was found that the election petitioner secured 5871 votes, whereas the revision petitioner herein secured 5808 votes. So, there is a difference of 63 votes. Form 25 was issued in favour of the election petitioner declaring that she was elected. Pursuant to which, GO was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
4.The revision petitioner filed WP(MD)No.183 of 2020 challenging the process. The High Court allowed the writ petition observing that the election officer namely the 4th respondent herein has no right to declare the result after recounting. The order was passed on 06/02/2020.
5.Against that, election petitioner filed S.L.P (Civil)No.3876-3877/2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was dismissed. Thereafter, by order, dated 20/02/2023, liberty was granted to the election petitioner under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The 3rd respondent namely the District Collector, Sivagangai initiated departmental action against the election officer namely the 4th respondent for dereliction of duty. She was demoted for the misconduct.
6.With the above said averments, the election petitioner filed a petition seeking declaration that the election of the revision petitioner as Village Panchayat President in the election held on 30/12/2019 is not valid and consequently declaring that the election petitioner won the election and for costs.
7.The 4th respondent namely the election officer filed a counter stating that in the election, there were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 22599 original voters. Out of the above said voters, 11924 votes were polled including the postal votes. Counting commenced on 02/01/2020 at about 5.00 pm for the present post. 10748 votes were found eligible. The Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer without verifying the votes, counted in a hurried manner announced as if the revision petitioner secured 5524 votes in total. Whereas the election petitioner secured 5224 votes. At that time, the election petitioner raised dispute. In spite of the objection made by the election petitioner, the Returning Officer put her signature in Form 25. The revision petitioner managed to take the Form 25 even before it was affixed with seal. So, the election petitioner made a complaint to the Election Observer.
8.The District Collector and the Election Observer visited the spot, made enquiry and found that the votes polled in two booths namely 48 and 49 were not counted. The Returning Officer explained to the Election Observer that the votes relating to the said two booths were kept in the table of the Assistant Returning Officer. But by mistake, they were left uncounted. The revision petitioner herein and the election petitioner were present and they were informed that mistake has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 committed in counting of votes. So, it was informed that all the votes will be re-counted and thereafter only result will be declared. The revision petitioner did not agree for that and stated that counting is over and the results have already been declared and it should not be changed. The District Collector and the Polling Observer tried to convince the revision petitioner, even though the election petitioner accepted the same, but not the revision petitioner.
9.By exercising the power under Rule 62, the order was passed for recounting the votes and counting the votes, which were left out. It was informed to the revision petitioner's husband namely Mangudi with regard to recounting as per Rule II(B). But he did not agree for the same. So the counting continued and concluded at 04.00 am. It was found that out of 11924 votes, only 11679 votes were found to be eligible. Out of 11679 votes, the revision petitioner secured 5808 votes and the election petitioner secured 5871 votes. Results were declared, Form 25 was issued declaring that the election petitioner won the election. The entire process was videographed. The process of counting was undertaken in the presence of the Election Observer namely Mr.M.Karunakaran, DSP, Karaikudi and other officials. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
10.In respect of the misconduct on the part of the Election Officer and the Assistant Election Officer, departmental proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The revision petitioner tries to take advantage of in-completed Form 25 issued without completing the counting, which is not permissible under law.
11.During the trial process, on the side of the petitioner, one witnesses was examined and 14 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 5 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked.
12.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the Election Court namely the Election Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the election petitioner declaring that Form 25 issued in favour of the election petitioner is valid and she won the election, whereas Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner herein is not valid and void.
13.Against which, this civil revision is preferred by the 4th respondent before the Election Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
14.Heard both sides.
15.In order to avoid confusion, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the Election Tribunal.
16.'Whether the irregularity/illegality alleged to have been committed by the election officials will enure to the benefit of any of the parties to the election' is the question which requires to be answered.
17.The basic principle is that irregularity/illegality of any nature will not enure to the benefit to any one.
18.With this in mind, now we will go to the issue.
19.The word 'irregularity/illegality' means differently to different people i.e., the election petitioner and the revision petitioner herein. Both of them are alleging each other that the other is trying to gain the benefit out of the irregularity/illegality committed by the election officials.
20.The irregularity/illegality, according to the revision petitioner is that Form 25 originally issued in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 her favour was cancelled. Fresh Form 25 was issued in favour of the election petitioner is per se illegal, which plea was sustained by the Division Bench of this court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21.Now, according to the election petitioner, irregularity was committed by the election officials in not counting 3 ballot boxes concerning two booths, hurriedly issued Form 25 to the revision petitioner without preparing Form Nos.22 and 23. Now the revision petitioner tries to get advantage of the above said irregularity/illegality.
22.Which one of these two is acceptable is the question to be answered in the light of the sequence of events, evidence on record, statutory provisions and of course with the aid of the arguments advanced on either side.
23.Now, first we will take up the sequence of events as culled out from the facts spoken by the witnesses.
Date Time Event
02/01/2020 08.00 am Counting commences
07.00 pm Arrival of the Election Observer
(RW2).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 Between Form 25 issued to the revision 07.30 pm petitioner.
and
08.00 pm
After 3 Complaint given by the election
hours petitioner to the Election
Observer.
Recounting, counting of left votes ordered by RW2, recounting started.
03/01/2020 05.00 am Second result was declared that the election petitioner won the election.
04/01/2020 Revision petitioner filed WP(MD)No.183 of 2020.
Interim order was passed staying the operation of the Form 25 issued in favour of the election petitioner.
06/02/2020 Division Bench allowed the writ
petition granting liberty to the
election petitioner to file
election petition if so aggrieved
over the election of the revision
petitioner.
14/02/2023 SLP preferred by the election
petitioner was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court,
15/02/2023 Revision petitioner was sworn in
as President-still continues.
24.After that, the present election petition was
filed.
25.Statutory provisions governing the counting of
votes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
26.Rule 60 empowers the counting agent of the contesting candidate must be permitted at the time of counting, the votes must be counted, either by or under the supervision and direction of the Returning Officer.
27.Rule 64 to 67 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 reads as under:-
64.Counting of valid votes,-(1) The vote recorded in every ballot paper which is not rejected under Rule 63 shall be counted.
(2)After the counting of the votes recorded in all ballot papers contained in all ballot boxes has been completed, the Returning Officer shall have the result of such counting entered in Part II of Form 20 and it shall be signed by the counting supervisor and the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer shall, then, make the entries relating thereto in a result sheet in Form 22.
(3)The valid ballot papers found in all the ballot boxes as well as the valid votes referred to in clause (c) of sub-rule (2) shall, thereafter, be bundled together and kept along with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 the bundle of rejected ballot papers in a separate packet which shall be sealed and on which shall be recorded the following particulars, namely:-
(a) name of election;
(b) the number of the Ward and the name of Panchayat; and
(c) the date of counting.
65.Counting to be continuous.- The Returning Officer shall, as far as practicable proceed continuously with the counting and shall during any interval when the counting has to be suspended, keep the ballot papers, packets and all other papers relating to elections sealed with his own seal and the seals of such Candidates or election Agents as may desire to affix their seals and take sufficient precaution for their safe custody during such interval.
66.Re-count of votes.-(1)After the completion of the counting and recording in Form 22 the total number of votes polled by each Candidate under sub-rule (2) of Rule 64, the Returning Officer shall announce the same. After such announcement and before the declaration of the result of the election, a contesting Candidate or in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 his absence his election Agent, may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a re-count of all or any of the votes already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such re-
count.
(2)On such application being made, the Returning Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part, or may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.
(3)Every decision of the Returning Officer under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefore.
(4)If the Returning Officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application either in whole or in part, he shall-
(a)count the votes again in accordance with his decision;
(b)amend the result sheet in Form 22 to the extent necessary after such re-count; and
(c)announce the amendments so made by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 (5)After the total number of votes polled by each Candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (4) of this Rule, the Returning Officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 22 and no application for a re-count shall be entertained thereafter:
Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the Candidates or the election Agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub- rule (1).
67.Declaration of result of election.-
(2)(a)In the case of election of President of Village Panchayat, after the Returning Officer has completed the scrutiny and counting of votes, he shall declare the contesting Candidate to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given and complete and certify the return in Form 23 and send the signed copy thereof to the District election Officer and the State Election Commission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
(b)The Returning Officer shall also forthwith cause the said form to be affixed in his office, and in the office of the Village Panchayat and one or more conspicuous places in the Village Panchayat.
(c)If there is an equality of
votes between two or more contesting
Candidates, the Returning Officer
should follow the procedure laid down in clause (c) of sub-rule (1).
(d)Any contesting Candidates or
his election Agent or his counting
Agent, on application be permitted to take a copy or an extract from the Statement in Form 22.”
28.Reading of these provisions make the position very clear to the effect that the Rules were framed in a full proof manner with the aim that mandate of the voters must be respected. Violation of the Rules will lead to declaration of the results as void, for which ground are made under section 259 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which reads as follows:-
“259.Grounds for declaring elections to be void.(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the District Judge is of opinion -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
(a)that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act, or
(b)that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent, or
(c)that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected, or
(d)that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected-
(i)by the improper acceptance of
any nomination, or
(ii)by any corrupt practice
committed in the interests of the
returned candidate by a person other
than that candidate or his agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or agent, or
(iii)by the improper acceptance or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
(iv)by the non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
(2)If, in the opinion of the
Court, a returned candidate has been
guilty by an agent of any corrupt
practice, but the Court is satisfied-
(a)that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent of the candidate;
(b)that the candidate took all
reasonable means for preventing the
commission of corrupt practice at the election; and
(c)that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents,then, the Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.”
29.Election petition can be filed under section 258, which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 “258.Election petitions.-(1)No election of a President or a Chairman or a Member shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge of the district in which the Panchayat is situated, within [forty-five days] from the date of the publication of the result of the election under this Act.
(2)An election petition calling in question any such election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 259 by any candidate at such election, by any elector of the ward concerned or by any member.
(3)A petitioner shall join as
respondents to his petition all the
candidates at the election.;
(4)An election petition-
(a)shall contain a concise
statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies;
(b)shall, with sufficient
particulars, set forth the ground or
grounds on which the election is called in question; and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
(c)shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for the verification of pleadings.
(5)The trial of an election
petition shall, so far as is
practicable, consistently with the
interest of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day-to-day until its conclusion, unless the District Judge finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(6)Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the District Judge for trial.”
30.With these provisions and the sequence of events at the time of counting in mind, we will go to the important aspect, that was raised by the revision petitioner at the time of argument.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
31.According to the revision petitioner, the order passed by the Election Court declaring that the election of the election petitioner is valid is, nothing, but an order of contemptuous in nature violating the Division Bench order. This was the repeated submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
32.Per contra, Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the order passed by the Election Court can at no stretch of imagination be termed as contemptuous in nature. In fact, the Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the election petitioner to challenge the election of the revision petitioner by filing the petition under section 258. So, according to them, the power of the Election Court was not taken away, either by the Division Bench of this court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in arriving at a conclusion based upon evidence.
33.This must be addressed first before entering the main issue. For that purpose, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court requires careful reading. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
34.The revision petitioner prayed declaration that the Form 25 issued on 02/01/2020 in favour of the election petitioner namely A.Piriyadarshini as elected President is null and void and simultaneously writ of certiorified mandamus calling for the records in connection with Na.Ka.No.A6/464/2018, dated 03/01/2020 and quashing the same. In effect, what is the prayer made by the revision petitioner is that the election of the election petitioner namely A.Piriyadarshini is not valid and the Official Memorandum dated 03/01/2020 must be quashed. There is no prayer by the revision petitioner that Form 25 issued in her favour on 02/01/2020 and elected as President is valid under law.
35.But reading of the order of the Election Court shows that it has misread the prayer portion in the writ petition. The Election Court stated as if the prayer is sought by the revision petitioner to declare that Form 25 dated 02/01/2020 issued in her favour as elected President of Sakkottai Village as if she won is valid and Form 25 issued in favour of the election petitioner is null and void. This is the incorrect observation made by the Election Court. As mentioned above, it is nothing, but misreading of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
36.Now let us go to the judgment of the Division Bench. The Division Bench concentrated mainly on the issue of recounting of the votes made by the election officer. It concluded that it violated the statutory provision and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi (2003)1 SCC 108.
37.Nowhere it is stated that Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner on 02/01/2020 is valid under law. But liberty was granted to the election petitioner to challenge the same by way of election petition. But as mentioned above, it is stated that Form 25 issued in favour of the election petitioner after recounting is not valid under law, because of the statutory violation noticed as stated above. In this connection, a submission was made by Mr.R.Baskaran, the learned Additional Advocate General that two aspects were involved. One is recounting of the votes already counted. Another one is counting of the uncounted votes.
38.Perusal of the records shows that as mentioned by the learned Additional Advocate General, two aspects are involved. The arguments before the Division Bench of this court mainly concentrated on the recounting of the votes and not continuation of the counting of the left over https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 votes. But there is no finding or order by the Division Bench with regard to the counting of the left over votes by the election officer, in pursuance of the order passed by the Election Observer. Apart from that, the Division Bench has also made a finding with regard to the discrepancy occurred in Form 25 issued on 02/01/2020 in favour of the election petitioner and Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner by correcting the date as 03/01/2020.
39.Reading of the judgment of the Division Bench does not indicate anything to the effect that Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner is valid under law and continuation of counting of the uncounted votes were improper and without power. As mentioned above, election petitioner was permitted to move the Election Court challenging the same. But because of the above said discrepancies and the power of the election officer to make recounting Form 25 issued in favour of the election petitioner was cancelled. So, in view of the above said, the power of the Election Court to decide the validity of Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner was not taken away. So, the argument advanced on the side of the revision petitioner that the Division Bench has found that Form 25 issued in her favour is valid under law is not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
40.So, the Election Court is well within the power to decide the issue with regard to the validity of the election of the revision petitioner.
41.Before we enter into the main issue, some of the preliminary points raised by the revision petitioner must be addressed.
Non-compliance of Rule 125 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1994.
42.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the election petition lacks the material facts warranting interference by the Election Tribunal. According to him, only bald statement is made, not only in the representation given to the Election Observer, but also even in the petition itself. He would further elaborate that the particulars with regard to the table wherein missing votes were found, the Officers who were present in that place and number of votes missed to be counted are lacking.
43.In this connection, he would refer to the following judgments:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 (1)Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [(2009)9 SCC 310];
(2)Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang [(2012)3 SCC 236];
(3)Ram Sewak Yadav Vs.Hussain Kamil Kidwai(AIR 1964 SC 1249);
(4)Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind (1976)1 SCC 687;
(5)M.Chinnasamy Vs. K.C.Palanisamy [(2004)6 SCC 341]; and (6)Tanaji Ramachandra Nimhan Vs. Swati Vinayak Nimhan [(2006)2 SCC 300];
and would submit that the bald statements are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of law.
44.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the election petitioner would submit that the representation itself will speak the irregularity. In the representation, she has stated that some 'FsWgo' has happened. What was the 'FsWgo' even though not mentioned, it encompassed the irregularities. But nothing more required to be stated. Even in the election https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 petition, he has elaborated the material facts. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Pal Vs. Ra Dass Malanger and others [(2000)1 SCC 261] for differentiating material facts and material particulars.
45.Reading of para No.3, with regard to the contention of the revision petitioner, will give the answer to the argument advanced. The details of the booths are mentioned as 45W, 49M and 49F votes were not counted. Even though this specific fact is not mentioned in the representation, but as mentioned above, it encompassed the above said issue also.
46.Reading of the entire petition does not show that it suffers from omission to mention the material particulars. I am not satisfied with the argument that no material particulars are stated.
47.The revision petitioner's next argument is that who made the representation, there is discrepancy. In the petition, it has been stated as if the election petitioner made the representation to the Election Observer. But the copy of the representation is not enclosed along with the petition at the time of enquiry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 On the side of the official respondent namely through RW1, the copy of the representations were marked as Exs.R14 and R15. But only through the agent, the above said representation was made and not by the election petitioner in person. But that need not be taken as a major issue, because that is admitted by the Election Observer that representation was made by the election petitioner to him about irregularities.
48.The next argument of the revision petitioner is that copies were furnished to them without proper signature of the election petitioner and her counsel. This, according to her, is not proper and entertaining the election petition itself is illegal. But the copy of the petition and affidavit served upon the revision petitioner were not produced before the Election Tribunal. So, even if we consider that the copy was not properly served by the election petitioner and her counsel, it is only a curable mistake. It might have been brought to the notice of the Election Tribunal after receiving the copy for correction. No steps were taken by the revision petitioner in this direction. This also cannot be taken into account at the revisional stage. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
49.With regard to the pleadings, another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the 3rd respondent namely the election officer filed the counter, which is not in proper form. It is not a counter affidavit. There is no jural portion in the counter. But without noticing the same, the Election Tribunal entertained the same as counter. For this also, the answer will be the same. This might have been brought to the notice of the Election Tribunal at the relevant point of time. This is too late, that too at the revisional stage to raise such a technical issue.
50.As mentioned above, these are the curable defects, which could have been cured before the trial court. This argument is also not acceptable. With regard to the pleadings, reading of the election petition shows that the main ground on which the election is challenged is omission to count all the votes, issuing of Form 25 to the revision petitioner midway. This is sufficient enough to know the case of the election petitioner, minutest details as projected by the revision petitioner need not be stated.
Non examination of the revision petitioner:-
51.This point was raised by the learned Senior https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 Counsel appearing for the election petitioner stating that only in civil matters, husband and wife can be agent for each other. But here, it is a quasi criminal in nature. A specific allegation is made that the revision petitioner after obtaining the Form 25 left the counting centre. When objection was made by the election petitioner, intervention was made by the Election Observer and decision to make recounting. The revision petitioner did not accept the same and went away.
52.The learned Additional Advocate General would go further and would submit that this is nothing, but corrupt practice adopted by the revision petitioner, having full knowledge that counting is not completed. She managed to go away, that is sufficient to declare that her election and the Form 25 issued in her favour is invalid. According to the election petitioner, this was supported by the official witness namely RW1 and RW2. In this circumstance, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to get into the box and subjected herself to cross examination. So, according to him, the Election Tribunal has correctly drawn adverse inference against her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
53.No doubt that this petition is a quasi criminal in nature. But except the allegation that the revision petitioner went out of the counting centre, after hearing those things namely objection and decision, no other specific allegation is made against her. So, according to the revision petitioner, there was no occasion or there was no need for her to examine herself, her husband, who was also the agent and present at the time of counting was examined.
54.In an election petition, it is for the election petitioner to prove the grounds made by her. She cannot be permitted to take advantage of the defects of the other side. RW3 has given evidence and subjected him for cross examination even on these factual aspects also. So, I am of the considered view that nothing would have been improved by examining the revision petitioner. Adverse inference drawn by the Election Tribunal is not acceptable. Non examination of the revision petitioner did not materially affect the merits of the matter.
Examination of RW1 as a witness:-
55.This is greatly commented by the revision petitioner contending that RW1 was summoned by none. She https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 on her own, came and stated that she was called to give evidence by the Government Pleader. This, according to the revision petitioner, shows that she was interested with the election petitioner and so, brought the documents. This is also not convincing argument. RW1 in fact is duty bound to cooperate with the Election Tribunal to decide the issue, being the election official. She was the election officer in the election. She signed the Form 25 issued in favour of the parties. She was arrayed as 5th respondent in the writ petition referred above in her individual capacity, the 3rd respondent as the election officer in her official capacity. So, when she is a party to the election petition, how this argument is raised is not understandable. She was departmentally proceeded for dereliction of duty during the counting process. So, she is competent to give evidence on behalf of the election commission and also as a officer during the relevant point of time. So, this contention on the part of the revision petitioner is not well founded and cannot be accepted at all.
56.The next argument pertaining to RW1 is that the official documents were marked through her. The answer will be the same as before. More-over, objection was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 raised only for marking Exs.R10 and R12. Subject to the objection those documents were marked. But, as mentioned above, she is the official of the State Election Commission during the relevant point of time. So, she is competent to speak about the happenings. This argument on the part of the revision petitioner is devoid of merits and rejected.
Allegation against RW2:-
57.RW2 was the Election Observer appointed by the State Election Commission during the relevant time to oversee the conduct of the election. Some unsavory comments have been made again him stating that he is relative of the election petitioner. He was in the counting centre throughout the day and in fact, he is the mastermind behind the entire episode, etc. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show the personal interest. As mentioned above, he was told about the 'FsWgo'. As the Election Observer, he is duty bound to make enquiry and give direction to the election officer.
58.Rule 6-A of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 reads as under:-
“6-A. Observers.-(1) The Tamil
Nadu State Election Commission may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 nominate an observer, who shall be an officer of the Government to watch the conduct of election or elections to the Panchayats or a part or a group thereof within a Revenue Division or a part of Revenue Division or a group of Revenue Divisions and to perform such other functions as may be entrusted to him by the State Election Commission.
(2) The Observer nominated under sub-rule (1) shall have the power to direct the Returning Officers concerned, to stop the counting of votes at any time before the declaration of the result or not to declare the result, if in the opinion of the Observer, booth capturing has taken place at a large number of polling stations or at places fixed for the poll or counting of votes or any ballot papers used at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll are unlawfully taken out of the custody of the presiding Officer or the Returning Officer, or if at any time before the counting of the votes is completed, ballot papers used at a polling station are unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Returning Officer or are accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost or are damaged or tampered with to such an extent that the result of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained.
(3)Where an observer has directed the Returning Officer under this rule to stop counting votes or not to declare the result, the Observer shall forthwith report the matter to the District Election Officer, State Election Officer and the State Election Commission and thereupon the District Election Officer shall, after taking all material circumstances into account, issue appropriate directions under Rule 57 of Rule 62.
Explanation.- For the purpose of sub-rules (2) and (3), ‘Observer’ shall include any Officer of the State Election Commission as has been assigned under this rule the duty of watching the conduct of election or elections to the Panchayats or a part or a group thereof within a Revenue Division or a part of Revenue Division or a group of Revenue Divisions by the State Election Commission.
59.So he is the official of the Election Commission to oversee the election process. In fact, I am of the considered view that he wanted to ensure that counting is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 made in a proper manner. For this endeavour, it appears that the revision petitioner wants to crucify him. Except making this observation, I do not want to go further except recording that baseless allegations have been made.
60.We will see the evidentiary value of RW2 later. Counting and declaration of the result process:-
61.Here comes the Division Bench judgment. As mentioned above, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the Election Court was not permitted to go into the validity of Form 25 issued to the election petitioner. Contra is the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the election petitioner.
62.As mentioned above, liberty was granted to the election petitioner to file petition under section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Act. So, in effect, when permission is granted to invoke section 258, the question which arises for consideration is whether the contention raised by the revision petitioner can be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
63.I am considered view that it is not acceptable for the simple reason that once liberty is granted, then it must be deemed that all the questions are left open to be decided in the proceedings on the basis of the evidence let in. Even admitted by the revision petitioner that the election petitioner must prove her allegation through evidence.
64.When the irregularity/illegality committed by the election officials is apparent on the face of the records and that too admitted by themselves, no more proof is required. It is the substance of the contention by the election petitioner.
65.In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the considered view that neither the Election Court, nor this Court is prevented from going into that aspect by the Division Bench. If the contention of the revision petitioner is accepted, then the liberty granted by the Division Bench, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will become unworkable and unenforceable in nature.
66.The contention is that RW1 was demoted because of the lapses committed by her. She was taking contradictory stand one before the Division Bench, another during https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 departmental proceedings and another before the Election Tribunal may not assume importance. Whether the evidence of RW1 can be accepted, which is in the form of admission, can be decided by taking into account the circumstances. Because circumstance is the best evidence. Witnesses may lie, but not the circumstances.
67.Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-
“17.Admission defined.-An
admission is a statement, oral or
documentary of contained in electronic form which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
“18.Admission by party to
proceeding or his agent.- Statements
made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court, regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 by suitor in representative character.-Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
Statements made by -
(1)party interested in subject
matter.-persons who have any
proprietary or pecuniary interest in
the subject-matter of the proceeding,
and who make the statement in their
character of persons so interested, or (2)person from whom interested derived.-persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.”
68.Now she says that the irregularity/illegality was committed in the process of counting since she believed the counting made by the Assistant Election Officer. According to her, uncounted votes were left in the table of the Assistant Election Officer, that was brought to her notice only after the intervention made by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 Election Observer namely RW2. The blame game is a matter for consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. I am not going into that aspect. But it is candidly admitted by her that three ballot boxes were not counted. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of RW2. He wrote a letter in this aspect and circulated the same to RW1. Based upon which, counting of the uncounted votes and recounting of votes which were already counted were taken.
69.In Ex.R6, wherein RW2 has stated that on the representation made by the election petitioner, he came to the counting hall, checked the counting table with list. He found that the votes in booth Nos.48W, 39M and 49F totally 1359 votes were not counted and added to the result sheet; Results were announced hurriedly without verification; It was objected by the opposite candidate namely Piriyadharshini; At that time, Mr.Arun, DSP was also present; In the meantime, the revision petitioner took away the certificate; In his opinion, some foul-play happened. Hence the verification was made for three hours. After that, he decided that recounting of all the votes must be made.
70.This, according to the revision petitioner is per se illegal. RW2 has absolutely no right to order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 recounting after the certificate was issued to the revision petitioner. For that purpose, as mentioned above, they would rely upon the Division Bench order and some of the decisions now.
(1)P.K.K.Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen [1989(1) SCC 526];
(2)Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi [2003(1) SCC 108];
(3)M.Kumaresan Vs. State Election Commissioner [(2012)2 CTC 68];
(4)K.Munusamy Vs. The State Election Commissioner [2008(1)CTC 762];
(5)Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang
[(2012)3 SCC 236];
(6)Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind [(1976)1 SCC 687];
(7)M.Chinnasamy Vs. K.C.Palanisamy [(2004)6 SCC 341]; and (8)Tanaji Ramachandra Nimhan Vs. Swati Vinayak Nimhan [(2006)2 SCC 300]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
71.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the election petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this court in N.Ponnusamy Vs. Returning Officer and Special Grade Executive Officer, Inam Karur Town Panchayat, Vengamedu, Karur Taluk and nine others [2001(1)CTC 232] would contend that when irregularity is apparent on the face of the record in the form of procedural violation, then Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner is not valid.
72.In this context, he would submit that the process of making Form Nos.22, 23 and 25 as extracted above was not complied.
73.In this context, we will go to the evidence of RW1.
74.After three hours of Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner, RW2 informed her about the irregularity. At that time, the District Collector came to that spot. After that, recounting was taken. But the revision petitioner and her husband did not admit or agree for recounting and they walked away. This piece of evidence is corroborated by RW2. Against this evidence, the revision petitioner has let in her husband namely https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 41/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 RW3, two other witnesses namely Chokkalingam and Sengole, who also contested in the very same election for the Councillor post.
75.PW1 has stated that the ballot papers in the boxes numbering 48W, 49M and 49F were not counted. When recounting started the revision petitioner and her agent walked out of the counter hall. At about 10.00 pm on 02/01/2020, she gave a complaint and her agent also gave the complaint. When she lodged a complaint, the District Collector, DSP Arun and Reporters were present.
76.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has pointed out some of the discrepancies in the evidence of the election petitioner regarding the particulars of the votes missing, etc. facts. But from the discrepancies occurred in the evidence of PW1, the election petitioner whether it affects the ultimate conclusion is the matter for discussion, that will be decided in the course of the further discussion.
77.Now we will go to the evidence of RW3. At about 08.30 pm after counting was over, the revision petitioner was declared as elected. She secured 5871 votes. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 42/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 revision petitioner secured 5809 votes. The revision petitioner secured 62 votes in excess and she was declared as elected. After receiving Form 25, they went away. So, according to the revision petitioner, recounting undertaken was not known to them. It was not duly informed by the election officer.
78.There is no evidence on record to show that the proposed recounting intimation was served upon the revision petitioner in writing. This is the lapse committed by the election officer saying that orally, it was informed to the revision petitioner and her husband. But they did not agree for that.
79.Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the absence of written intimation, the evidence of RW1 and RW2 must be discarded. In this context, now we will go to the evidence of RW4 and RW5. RW4/Chokkalingam says that between 08.15 pm to 08.30 pm, the revision petitioner declared as elected. Difference of votes is declared as 62. At about 09.00 pm, they went away from the counting center. He admits that he was not permitted inside the counting centre. But however, he went to the centre. He would further say that he was already available in the centre, so no permission is required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 43/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
80.RW5/Sengole has not stated anything about the issue with regard to recounting. He says that at about 05.30 pm, election result was announced that revision petitioner was elected. But he is not the direct witness to the issue. So, the evidence of RW4 and RW5 are not helping the court to arrive at a just conclusion.
81.In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the election petitioner would draw the attention of this court to the additional grounds raised by the revision petitioner in para 46. According to him, it is admitted by the revision petitioner that Form 22 and 23 were not prepared. So, when there is violation of procedure that too admitted by the revision petitioner Form 25 issued at the first instance to the revision petitioner is not valid under law. Apart from that, the evidence of RW3 can also disbelieved on that aspect. As stated above, he has stated that he was told by the election officer that the revision petitioner secured 5871 votes and actually that figure was arrived, after recounting was made. Probably he is referring to recounting only. But at the first instance, as mentioned above, the revision petitioner stated to have secured 5524 votes. But the election petitioner polled 5224 votes. This fact was admitted by him during cross https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 44/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 examination. This indicates that he knows that all the votes were not counted. So, this itself indicates that the Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner is a premature one, without counting all the votes.
82.It is also admitted by him that when Form 25 was issued in her favour, the election officer namely RW2 and other officials came there. So, probably this would show that objection made by the election petitioner, later proposal for recounting was intimated and known to the revision petitioner. Having known that, they left the place with Form 25. So, there is the fault on the part of the revision petitioner. When it is brought to her notice that a premature Form was issued in her favour, she should have consented for continuation of the counting. She wanted to take advantage of the irregularity committed by the election officer. As mentioned above, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of the irregularity. Even her own conduct shows that she is not a genuine person, that is the reason for the learned Additional Advocate General commenting that it will amount to corrupt practice. So, the circumstance clearly indicates the fact that objection was made by the election petitioner, verification was made by RW2 and recounting was proposed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
83.Now the next question is whether such a premature issue of Form 25 will clothe the revision petitioner still any right. For that, for and against arguments were advanced.
84.The election petitioner would say that what was committed by the election officer is nothing, but fraud upon the process. When fraud is alleged and admitted by the election officer namely RW1, it should not be termed as 'due declaration of result'. So, as directed by the Election Observer recounting was made is not per se illegal.
85.In this context, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would rely upon the following judgments:-
(1)P.K.K.Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M.Mappillai Mohindeen [1989(1) SCC 526];
(2)Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi [(2003)1 SCC 108];
(3)M.Kumaresan Vs. State Election Commissioner [(2012)2 CTC 68];
(4)K.Munusamy Vs. The State
Election Commissioner [(2008(1)CTC
762];
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 46/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 (5)Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [(2009)9 SCC 310];
(6)Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang [(2012)3 SCC 236]; and (7)Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind [(1976)1 SCC 687];
and would submit that once declaration is made, recounting is a matter or power to be exercised by the Election Court and not the authorities concerned. Which view was affirmed by the Division Bench in this subject matter. But all the above cases are not dealing with the uncounted votes and premature issue of Form 25.
86.As mentioned above, the election petitioner relied upon the number of judgments. So by way of the judgment in Ponnusamy's case, when there is procedural violation, it cannot be termed as 'due declaration'. So, at no stretch of imagination, premature issue of Form 25 in favour of the revision petitioner can be termed as 'due declaration of result'. Consequently the right of the election petitioner to seek recounting and the power of the officials to take the recounting process cannot be called in question as illegal. So, I find that not only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 47/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 the continuation of the counting of the uncounted votes, but also recounting of the votes already counted was not illegal and it can be termed as a fair play at the instance of RW2, who is duty bound to ensure the fair counting.
87.Now coming to the discrepancy, the votes polled, counted, etc. the revision petitioner filed his notes on 08/11/2024 stating that as per the official records, total number of votes polled is 11896 and as per the records submitted, postal votes are 80. Total number of votes polled is 11976.
88.We will go to the notes prepared by RW2 first, before we go into the evidence of RW1. This is commented by the revision petitioner stating that this also a concocted statement prepared behind the back of the revision petitioner, which has no authentication.
89.But the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the election petitioner would submit that this authentication is not fabricated one, since the Assistant Election Officer signed in the bottom of the tabulation. This document, according to the election petitioner, was not disputed by the revision petitioner, wherein the final https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 48/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 total is mentioned as 11936. Out of which, the revision petitioner was polled 5808 votes, whereas the election petitioner was polled 5871. The difference between the official figure as per Ex.R13 Form 22, dated 22/01/2020 and the notes prepared by RW2, there is a difference of 40 votes. What is the explanation offered by RW1 on this score is that 19 votes are found to be missing. But part II of Form 22 is not produced by the officials. According to her, total number of votes polled is 11955. out of which, 19 votes are found missing. The balance is 11936. So, this was the counting according to her as indicated in Ex.R7.
90.So, according to the election official, after recounting, it was found the final figure is only 11936. No doubt that there is discrepancy between Exs.R13 and R7. But the final figure has been arrived after verification. So, that must be taken as correct.
91.In the notes, it is submitted by the revision petitioner that as per the official records, 1334 votes pertaining to three booths namely 48W, 49M and 49F were not counted. If we add 1334 votes to Form No.22 prepared on 02/01/2020 under Ex.P2, then the total will be 10981. So, this also does not tally. So, according to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 49/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 revision petitioner, the figures were concocted. But I am unable to agree with this line of argument for the simple reason that the evidence of RW2 does not suffer from any infirmities.
92.As mentioned above, he took all earnest efforts to see that fair counting is made. After recounting was made, the above said figure was arrived at by the Assistant Election Officer. RW2 prepared the notes, so that must be taken as correct one. The discrepancy with regard to 40 votes or non explanation over the missing of 19 votes may not upset the final result, since the election petitioner was polled 63 votes more than that of the revision petitioner at the final.
The conclusion:-
93.The facts, as narrated above shows how the election officials in-spite of intensive training program, acted in a lethargic and insensitive manner. In a democratic country, the election process is the foundation. To ensure the fair play right from the notification, till sworn is made, in a foolproof manner rules were framed as noted above. In spite of all these things, the election officials are not realising their https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 50/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 responsibility. When a mistake knowingly or unknowingly committed by the election officials, the causality is the fair election process. The ultimate failure will be the democracy. Driving the entire people of the constituency to feel that they are failed by the system. Not only that they are driving the contesters to repeated litigation at the heavy cost of time and money.
94.The question is whether in view of the above said irregularity committed by the election officials, recounting may solve the issue. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Banamali Das Vs. Rajendra Chandra Mardaraj Harichandan and others [(1976)1 SCC 54] has struck a cautious note to make or enter into such a venture. Para 16 may be profitably reproduced hereunder:-
“16.Mr.Somnath Chatterjee, appearing for the appellant, argued that the facts which have emerged out of the recount throw consideration doubt on the manner in which the election was held and therefore instead of declaring respondent No.1 as the successful candidate we should order that a fresh election be held. Elections, says the learned Counsel, are not a matter of technicalities and the Court must satisfy its conscience that the election https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 51/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 before it was free and fair. Justice may be a matter for a Judge's conscience but even a strong and sensitive conscience must not brook a endless litigation in which parties will fish for new challenges based on accidental discoveries of no more than plausible points to ponder. The new errors on which the appellant now relies have an air of plausibility and no more. The new argument founded on those errors must therefore fail.”
95.Before this para, the last portion of the observation in para 15 in that above judgment may be reproduced for better clarification:-
“....And so we have to countenance an argument based on no pleadings, arising out of no issues and founded solely on errors, real or supposed, which are said to have happened to see the light of the day as a result of the recount and the re-recount. Even election petitions must end at some stage and they cannot, for the reason that elections are a democratic venture, be permitted to procreate points during the course of their pendency. As we were listening to the appellant's argument, we though we were hearing an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 52/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 independent election petition filed by the appellant in order to challenge the result of the recount.”
96.So, this is required to be placed on record, because an argument was advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that no recounting request was made by the election petitioner knowing that there are discrepancies in the records prepared by the election officials. As mentioned above, if recount is ordered, there is no possibility of tilting the balance in favour of the revision petitioner. Because difference between them is huge at the final stage.
97.Now coming to the final portion, no doubt that the final relief granted to the election petitioner is not inconsonance with the relief sought for. But however, the effect of the relief granted by the Election Court is the same. Even though the wording are different from the relief portion mentioned in the petition, that does not affect the ultimate conclusion.
98.In view of the discussion made above, the election petition squarely falls under section 259(1)
(iv), which reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 53/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 “259.Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the district Judge is of opinion--
“...(iv)by the non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.”
99.Now coming back to the opening paragraph of the discussion, in view of the above said conclusion, I am of the considered view that the revision petitioner tries to take advantage of the irregularity committed by the election officials. But not the election petitioner. In fact, the election petitioner is the victim.
100.So, the order passed by the Election Court does not suffer from irregularity or illegality or perversity.
It is a fair order, which requires no interference at the hands of this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 54/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024
101.In the result, this civil revision fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Election Court, of course without any costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14 /11/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.
2.The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 55/56 CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 G.ILANGOVAN, J er CRP(MD)No.2713 of 2024 14/11/2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 56/56