Madras High Court
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) vs The Tamil Nadu State Election ... on 26 April, 2012
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: D.Murugesan, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2012
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P. Nos.24078, 24132 and 24158, 24187, 24768, 24769 of 2011
and Contempt Petition No.377 of 2012 and 1664 of 2011
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.)
rep.by its Secretary Legal Wing, R.S.Bharathi
Anna Arivalayam
Door No.367 and 369, Anna Salai
Teynampet, Chennai 18 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24078/2011
G.Poonkunran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24132/2011
M.Subramanian .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24158/2011
T.K.Shanmugham .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24187/2011
M.P.Anbudurai .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24768/2011
A.Devarajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.24769/2011
N.Narayanan .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.1664/2012
G.Poonkunran .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.377/2012
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner
Office of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Hundred Feet Road, Arumbakkam
Chennai-106
2. Dr.S.Ayyar, I.A.S. (Retd.)
Commissioner
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Hundred Feet Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
3. The Returning Officer/
The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building, Chennai-3
4. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City, Egmore Respondents 1 to 4 in
Chennai-8 .. W.P.No.24078/2011
1. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. Thiru.S.Ayyar
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
3. The Secretary
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
4. The Returning Officer/Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3
5. The Returning Officer
Madurai Corporation, Madurai
6. The Returning Officer
Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore
7. The Returning Officer
Erode Corporation, Erode
8. The Returning Officer
Salem Corporation, Salem
9. The Returning Officer
Tiruppur Corporation, Tiruppur
10.The Returning Officer
Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi
11.The Returning Officer
Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli
12.The Returning Officer
Vellore Corporation, Vellore
13. The Returning Officer Respondents 1 to 13 in
Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.. W.P.No.24132/2011
1. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
represented by the State Election Commissioner
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. The Returning Officer/Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3
3. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Egmore Respondents 1 to 3 in
Chennai .. W.P.No.24158/2011
1. The District Election Officer/Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3
2. The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
3. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Egmore
Chennai-8
4. The Assistant Returning Officer
Zonal Officer-VI
Corporation of Chennai
No.5, Anderson Road Respondents 1 to 4 in
Ayanavaram, Chennai-23 .. W.P.No.24187/2011
1. The State Election Commission
represented by the State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. The Returning Officer cum Commissioner
of Chennai Corporation
New Ward No.118, Chennai Corporation
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3
3. The Commissioner of Police Respondents 1 to 3 in
Greater Chennai, Chennai-8 .. W.P.No.24768/2011
1. The State Election Commission
represented by the State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. The Returning Officer cum Commissioner
of Chennai Corporation
New Ward No.184, Chennai Corporation
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3
3. The Commissioner of Police Respondents 1 to 3 in
Greater Chennai, Chennai-8 .. W.P.No.24769/2011
1.S.Ayyar, I.A.S (Retd.)
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2.Mr.Karthikeyan,
Election commissioner,
Chennai City Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai 3
3.Mr.Thripathi,
The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 8
4.Mr.Ashok Kumar,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
T.Nagar, Chennai.17
5.Mr.Tamilselvan,
Asst. Commissioner of Police,
T.Nagar, Chennai.17
6.Mr.Rajendran,
Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Saidapet, (Incharge) Chennai 15.
7.Mr.Madhiazhagan,
Inspector of Police,
T.Nagar, R-2 Police Station,
Chennai.17
8.Mr.Kumar,
Inspector of Police,
Saidapet, J1 Police Station,
Chennai 17. ... respondents in Cont.P. No.1664/2011
1. S.Ayyar, I.A.S.,(Retd.)
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. V.M.Xavier Chrisso Nayagam
The Secretary
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
3. Thiru.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.,
The Returning Officer/Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai Respondents 1 to 3 in
Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3 .. Cont.P.No.377 of 2012
W.P.No.24078 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct repoll with respect to 239 booths inasmuch as the polling conducted with respect to 239 booths is marred by poll violence, booth capturing, rigging etc. Apart from the same being infringed in not conducting the same in a free and fair manner.
W.P.No.24132 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the poll conducted to the booths in Ward Nos.48, 49, 76, 101, 103, 104, 107, 111, 117, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171, 172, 179, 184 and 193 in Chennai City Municipal Corporation mayor and councilor post as null and void and consequently directing the respondents to conduct re-poll to all the booths in Ward Nos.48, 49, 76, 101, 103, 104, 107, 111, 117, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171, 172, 179, 184 and 193 Chennai City Municipal Corporation Mayor and respective councilor posts and direct the Respondent 1 to 3 to undertake simultaneous counting of votes in all counting center for the 10 Corporation for the post of Mayor and councillors by deploying adequate CRPF, web camers and video graph the entire proceedings under the supervision of independent observers drawn from other states.
W.P.No.24158 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct re-poll in Wards and Booths as stated in the petitioner representation dated 17.10.2011 (2.30 pm and 8 pm) to the respondents.
W.P.No.24187 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to conduct a re-election in respect of Ward Nos. 35 104 50 and 76 all of which witnessed large scale irregularities during the elections on 17.10.2011 and to video graph the entire process of counting of polls to all the Wards of the Corporation of Chennai and to provide adequate security and police protection during the process of counting and to permit only authorized persons with valid identity cards to be present at the counting stations and to appoint independent observers from other states to oversee the entire counting process in order to ensure a peaceful free and fair elections.
W.P.No.24768 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct re-poll in Ward No.118 booth Nos.2098(AV) 2099(AV) 2100(AV) 2101(AV) 2102(M) 2102(W) 2103(AV) 2104(AV) 2105(M) 2105(W) 2106(M) 2106(W) 2113(M) 2113(W).
W.P.No.24769 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct re-poll in Ward No.184 and booth Nos.3288 to 3304 totally 17 booths
Contempt Petition No.1664 of 2011 filed under Sections 10 & 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 14.10.2011 in W.P.No.23585 of 2011.
Contempt Petition No.377 of 2012 filed under Sections 10 & 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 14.10.2011 in W.P.No.22859 of 2011.
Appearance :-
Mr.N.Jothi, for Mr.R.Girirajan ... for petitioner in W.P.No.24078/2011
Mr.M.Dhandapani ... for petitioner in wpnos.24158, 24768, 24769/2011
Mr.P.Winson, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.R.Neelakandan ... for petitioner in W.P.No.24132/2011
and Contempt petitioner in 377 of 2012
Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan,
Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.B.Nedunchezhian Spl.G.P. ... for State Election Commissioner,
in wpnos.24078, 24158, 24132, 24768,
24769/2011 and for R-2 in WP.No.24187/11
Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.V.Bharathidasan ... for R-3 in W.P.No.24078/2011, R -2 in W.P.No.24158, 24768, 24769/2011,
R-1 to 4 in W.P.No.24187/2011
R-4 in W.P.No.24132/2011
R-3 in Contempt petition. 377/2012
R-2 in Contempt petition 1664/2011
Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, Spl.G.P. ... for R-4 in W.P.No.24078/2011,
R-3 in W.P.No.24158, 24187, 24768, 24769/11,
R.R3 to 8 in Cont.Pn.1664/2011
Ms.P.Shanthi ... R-9 in W.P.No.24132/2011
Mr.S.Kandasamy, Spl.G.P. ... for R-11 in W.P.No.24132/2011
Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.B.Nedunchezhian, Spl.G.P. ... R.1 and R.2 in Cont.Pn.377/2012
R.1 in Cont.Pn. 1664/2011
Mr.R.G.Annamalai ... for petitioner in Cont.P. 1664/2011
COMMON ORDER
K.K.SASIDHARAN , J.
INTRODUCTION :-
In these batch of writ petitions and contempt petitions, the main question that falls for determination is whether non-compliance of the directions issued by the High Court with respect to compulsory videography and uniform distribution of police force requisitioned from other States would automatically nullify the election without any proof that such violation materially affected the results of election.W.P.No.24078 of 2011
2.The writ petitioner is the Secretary of Legal Wing of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [hereinafter referred to as "DMK"], which is a recognized political party. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to conduct re-poll in 239 booths of Chennai Corporation as the election was marred by poll violence, booth capturing and rigging.
3.The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would contend :-
(i)DMK was in power for the period from 2006 to 2011. General Elections took place in the year 2011 and the rival political organization, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ["AIADMK", for short], came to power and took oath of office on 16 May 2011. Subsequently, the Government announced election to local body and the second respondent was appointed as the Election Commissioner. The second respondent was earlier functioning as Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. The said Corporation was dealing in Indian Made Foreign Liqour. The second respondent was favouring a particular distillery owned by the associates of the person in power. Subsequent to the announcement of local body election, at the instance of DMK, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.23557 of 2011. The said writ petition was taken up along with other writ petitions. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ petitions on 14 October 2011, directed the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to videograph compulsorily all the booths in the Chennai city Corporation. The Election Commission was directed to ascertain the feasibility of webcasting election in the Chennai City Municipal Corporation. Similarly, directions were issued to notify the sensitive booths in the rest of the State for the purpose of videographing the poll. The State Election Commissioners of other States who have been invited to observe the election process were designated as independent observers and the Commission was directed to assign areas to them for observation in such a manner that the entire State is covered.
(ii)Similarly, police personnel who were drafted/requisitioned from the State of Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra were directed to be distributed uniformly so as to ensure that all polling booths which have been declared as sensitive areas shall be posted with such police personnel along with the State Police. The State Election Commission was further directed to take such other steps that would be required to ensure conduct of election in a free and fair manner without giving any room for complaints.
(iii)Polling commenced on 17 October 2011 at 7 a.m. Election Commission has not taken any steps to videograph the entire polling booths. Directions issued by the Court for videographing and webcasting were deliberately flouted thereby enabling rowdy elements to cause trouble near the booths and to see that voters loyal to DMK are chased away;
(iv)The polling was at low percentage initially in all the 239 booths and it got accelerated after 2.30 p.m. and the members of the ruling party had cast bogus votes. Election to 239 named polling booths were not conducted properly. The petitioner and the duly appointed agents preferred complaints before the polling officers and the Election Commission. The representation narrated the non-availability of authorized officers near the polling booths.
(v)The State Election Commissioner, Returning Officer and the City Police Commissioner deliberately avoided the phone calls and kept themselves away from their respective offices. This was done with a clear intention to help the ruling party members and to win the election by unfair means. Polling in these 239 booths were done in an unfair manner without opportunity to all the voters to cast their votes.
COUNTER IN W.P.No.24708 of 2011 :-
4.The Returning Officer (Commissioner, Chennai Corporation) has filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The material portion of the counter would read thus :-
(i)The State Election Commission convened a meeting of the Election Officers and the police authorities on 14 October 2011 and in the said meeting, instructions were given to the Returning Officers to arrange for video recording in all the polling booths in coordination with Secretary, I.T. Department and Managing Director, Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu [hereinafter referred to as 'ELCOT']. The Secretary, State Election Commission has also sent a letter in this regard to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Secretary, I.T. Department and Managing Director, ELCOT.
(ii)Since the Returning Officer wanted 5000 professional videographers, Managing Director, ELCOT contacted the District Collectors of Tiruvallur, Kanchipuram, Vellore, Villupuram and Tiruvannamalai to mobilize laptops and send them to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai immediately, so that web-cameras could be fitted into the laptops and to record polling process in all the polling booths. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai also approached the Chief Electoral Officer and requested him to lend web-cameras to Chennai Corporation. The Chief Electoral Officer accepted the request and allotted 2990 nos. of webcameras from the districts of Tiruvallur, Kanchipuram, Vellore, Villupuram and Tiruvannamalai.
(iii)The Returning Officer, Corporation of Chennai arranged 3109 laptops and 3684 web cameras from various districts so as to use them on 17 October 2011.
(iv)The Returning Officer issued a press statement requesting the service of private videographers, public, including students, who own laptops with camera and volunteers who can operate such laptops.
(v)The Returning Officer contacted senior I.A.S. Officers of neighbouring Districts and requested them to mobilize videographers for recording the polling process in all the booths. The Returning Officer contacted Engineering, Arts and Science College authorities to identify students who are willing to come as volunteers. The Officer also announced that a sum of Rs.1,500/- would be given to those who come with handy camera or a laptops and Rs.700 was announced as remuneration for volunteers who are willing to operate laptops to be made available by the Chennai Corporation. The Corporation further announced that students will be given Certificates in appreciation of their participation in the election process.
(vi)The Corporation registered 1140 volunteers through their website and another 1450 persons registered through toll free numbers. Zonal officers of the Corporation received 2400 applications from various persons including professional videographers. Therefore, the Corporation was able to mobilize the services of 4995 people including student volunteers for the purpose of videographing the election process.
(vii)The Returning Officer received the laptops and web cameras on 15 October 2011. Laptops were connected to web cameras and required special software was also installed in the laptops to record the proceedings in poll stations. Starting from the night of 15 October 2011 and till 16 October 2011 night, the technicians loaded the software in all the laptops brought from various districts and 600 Desktops/laptops provided by the Chennai Corporation. Through this exercise sufficient numbers of laptops /computers with web-cameras were made ready by 16 October 2011 night and all these machines were despatched to various poll stations. The College authorities provided a list of students with their mobile numbers who were willing to volunteer their service for the election. All the students and the persons who had registered in the Corporation Website/toll free numbers were deputed to 18 Distribution centers and various polling stations on 16 October 2011 morning and they were informed about the locations where they should assemble on 17 October 2011.
(viii)The videographers/students and volunteers with laptops were allotted to 4875 polling stations in Chennai city.
(ix)The polling commenced at 7 a.m. on 17 October 2011. In some polling stations, persons who were deployed on duty viz., videographers, volunteers and students, did not turn up in spite of making proper and elaborate security arrangements. Polling in all the poll stations commenced early without any trouble. When the officials of the Corporation contacted the videographers/volunteers, some of them stated that they did not turn up because they feared that there would be violence in polling stations as happened in the previous local body elections. In spite of repeated requests by the officials, they did not turn up for duty. Even then, out of 4875 polling stations, the Returning Officer was able to arrange video recording in 4333 polling stations. With respect to other polling stations, recording was done through rounds by Assistant Returning Officers at random times.
(x)Mayoral Candidate of DMK Mr.Ma.Subramanian, submitted a representation with respect to certain mal-practices. The Election Officer scrutinized the documents used in the respective polling stations including Form 21 (Register of Voters) Presiding Officers Diary, Declaration of Elections and reports of Micro Observers related to all polling stations mentioned in the representation.
(xi)Scrutiny of records in respect of 239 poll stations were conducted in order to verify as to whether booth capturing has occurred in any of those alleged polling stations. In order to verify the same, Form 21, (Register of Voters), which contains serial numbers of the voters who cast vote in the order of arrival to the booth was verified. If the polling was genuine, then the serial numbers would not be continuous but in random order. However, verification proved that the numbers were in random order. Similarly, signatures of the voters were also verified and no discrepancy was found.
(xii) The votes polled after 3 p.m. was also subjected to verification. All votes polled after 3 p.m. were found genuine and it was not skewed as contended by the petitioner.
(xiii)Poll was conducted by and large peacefully. There were some minor incidents reported in few places including Kilpauk and Purasaiwakkam. In some of the polling stations, Presiding officers have reported that some miscreants entered the polling stations and unlawfully damaged the Voting Machines and disturbed the polling process. Therefore, repoll was recommended in those 7 polling stations. Re-polling took place in a peaceful manner. Video recording was done in all the seven polling stations besides web casting on 20 October 2011.
(xiv)The Election Officer specifically denied the allegation of booth capturing and rigging in 239 booths.
5.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, in his counter affidavit denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The Commissioner explained the steps taken by the police to ensure free and fair election to the Chennai Corporation. According to the Commissioner, Police personnel were deployed in all the centres. The Commissioner very specifically denied the allegation of booth capturing and other poll related offences with respect to 239 polling stations.
W.P.No.24158 of 20116.The petitioner, Mayor candidate sponsored by DMK, seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Election Commission to conduct repoll in the wards and booths as detailed in the representation submitted by him on 17 October 2011.
7.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend :-
(i)The High Court while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.No.23557 of 20011 batch directed the State Election Commission to videograph all the polling booths besides considering the feasibility of webcasting the elections. The State Election Commission was directed to invite independent observers to oversee the election process. The Election Commission was further directed to distribute the police force, requisitioned from other States uniformly, in all the sensitive booths along with the State police.
(ii)There were large scale booth capturing and bogus voting after 2 p.m. on 17 October 2011 in 239 booths under the leadership of MLAs and the office bearers of ruling party.
(iii)The petitioner and the other party functionaries contacted the State Election Commissioner and Chennai Police Commissioner repeatedly. However, they deliberately avoided the phone calls. The petitioner thereafter, made a written representation dated 17 October 2011 and requested for re-polling in 239 booths.
(iv)According to the petitioner, the booths mentioned in his representation were captured by AIADMK with the help of their M.L.As. and Ministers, in connivance with the police and they chased away the members of the public, who were waiting to cast their votes. The other agents who were overseeing the voting process were also chased away taking advantage of the fact that the poll process was not videographed in spite of the specific directions given by the High Court.
(v)The Election Commission failed to provide sufficient police force from other States and as a result, policemen were not distributed evenly in 4876 booths. The State Election Commission has not requested the service of CRPF.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION :-
8.The Secretary, State Election Commission, Tamil Nadu, has filed a detailed counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The material portion of the counter affidavit would read thus:-
(i)The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission as per letter dated 14.09.2011 directed the Returning Officer/District Election Officer/ Commissioner of Chennai Corporation to make necessary arrangements to provide videography considering the number of sensitive polling stations, previous history of booth capturing and other malpractices, law and order situation, likelihood of committing corrupt practices, electoral offences and other related factors. Detailed directions were also issued specifying that the private videographers to be hired shall be screened thoroughly as to their professional competence, track record and financial viability. The Commission also emphasized that videographers should not belong to any political party and should not be the known sympathizers or supporters of any of the political parties.
(ii)Subsequent to the judgment dated 14 October 2011 in W.P.No.23557/2011 etc. batch, detailed directions were issued to the Election Officers on 14 October 2011 itself calling upon them to make elaborate arrangements to ensure free and fair election. The Election officers were directed to make arrangements for videography/ webcasting in all the poll stations.
(iii)The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, in his communication indicated that the Corporation has made arrangements to procure 3109 laptops from 5 districts and 3684 web cameras from the neighbouring districts. The Returning Officer issued press release calling for applications from private videographers, students, and volunteers and accordingly, several persons with laptop contacted the Corporation and their names were registered.
(iv)The Chennai City faced election for the Municipal Corporation on 17 October 2011. Police personnel were deployed in all the booths and all places of necessity from the time of polling.
(v)The petitioner submitted a representation at 4 p.m. on 17 October 2011 requesting for re-poll in about nine wards. Subsequently, at about 4.45 p.m., another representation was given by him for conducing re-poll in the very same nine wards. This was followed by a representation from Thiru.A.K.Murthy, Mayoral candidate of PMK Party seeking re-poll in ward Nos.49 and 184. Thereafter, at 9.15 p.m., another representation was received from the petitioner to conduct re-poll in 239 polling stations.
(vi)The State Election Commission directed the Returning officer, Corporation of Chennai to verify all the relevant records pertaining to poll and inform as to whether elections were conducted in a free and proper manner.
(vii)The petitioner was called for an enquiry to ascertain the veracity of his complaints. The petitioner was asked to appear in person on 18 October 2011 at 2.00 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioner, along with the writ petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011, appeared for the enquiry. They were asked to produce documents in support of their contentions. They have not produced any evidence to substantiate their allegations. The election was conducted by and large peacefully without any serious problem.
(viii)The Commission received reports about the poll related offences from the Presiding Officers in charge of seven polling stations and a detailed report from the Returning Officer. Re-polling was conducted in all the 7 booths in a peaceful manner.
9.The Returning Officer, filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations and averments as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
10.The material portion of the counter affidavit with respect to this writ petition would read thus :-
(i)The petitioner submitted a representation alleging booth capturing by the ruling party members. The said complaint was considered immediately. The documents including Form 21 (Register of Voters), Presiding Officers' Diary, Declaration and reports of Micro Observers relating to the polling stations were examined.
(ii)Out of 239 polling stations, 11 polling stations mentioned in the complaint had been repeated twice. In another 9 polling stations, DMK candidates got more votes than other candidates. In polling station 2202AV, DMK candidate secured only one vote less than the winning candidate. Repolls were ordered in seven booths, including five polling stations as indicated in the complaint preferred by the petitioner, on the basis of the report submitted by the Polling Officers through the Returning Officer. Verification of records revealed that there were no such acts of booth capturing by anybody much less the ruling party members.
(iii)Elaborate arrangements have been made to videograph the polling process and some of the booths were covered in a random manner on account of the absence of sufficient number of videographers and volunteers.W.P.No.24132 of 2011
11.This writ petition at the instance of a legal practioner seeks a writ of declaration to declare that the poll conducted in booths in Nos.48, 49, 76, 101, 103, 104, 107, 111, 117, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171, 172, 179, 184 and 193 in Chennai City Municipal Corporation as null and void and to conduct repoll in all those booths and to undertake counting of votes in all counting centres for the 10 Corporation by deploying adequate CRPF, Web Cameras and video graph the entire proceedings under the supervision of independent observers drawn from other states.
12.The petitioner has not pressed the prayer in respect of counting, on account of the subsequent events more particularly, the process undertaken by the Returning Officer to videograph the entire counting process.
13.The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would contend :-
(i)The petitioner along with other advocates, who were interested in the concept of free elections, submitted series of representations to the State Election Commissioner requesting him to ensure free and fair election.
(ii)Polling started on 17 October 2011 at 7 a.m. The petitioner was contacted by many advocates who have also contested the elections as independent candidates and he personally visited many booths/wards and came to know that video cameras were not installed in most of the booths. Video coverage was not provided in 90% of the booths. This inaction was deliberate, intended to encourage bogus voting in favour of the ruling AIADMK Party.
(iii)Though Election Commission agreed to deploy sufficient number of police force from other States, no such attempt was made and the policemen from other States were not uniformly distributed. At about 10 a.m., on 17 October 2011, he came to know that one Advocate met the Returning officer, Chennai Corporation and brought to his notice certain discrepancies. The fourth respondent gave an evasive answer that he would make arrangements in due course. When he was confronted that polls have started at 7 a.m. without video coverage, he was not responsive.
(iv)The petitioner along with a group of advocates, met the State Election Commissioner around 12.30 p.m. on 17 October 2011 and submitted a representation;
(v)According to the petitioner, he came to know that there were acts of booth capturing and on receipt of such information, he submitted a representation during the evening of 17 October 2011 and requested the Election Commission to conduct repoll. However, no action was taken by the Commission.
14.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Election Commission and the Returning Officer, Chennai Corporation have filed separate counter affidavits disputing the allegations and averments as contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner.
W.P.Nos.24768, 24769 and 24187 of 2011 :-
15.The petitions in W.P.Nos.24768 and 24769 of 2011 are at the instance of two members of DMK and they seek a direction to conduct repoll in some of the booths in Ward No.118 and 184 of Chennai Municipal Corporation and their grievance is primarily on account of the failure on the part of the Returning Officer to provide video coverage in spite of issuing directions by the Court.
16.The petitioner in W.P.No.24187 of 2011 seeks a Writ of Mandamus to conduct re-election in respect of ward nos.35, 104, 50 and 76, principally on the ground that video recording was not provided and this enabled antisocial elements to capture booths and bogus voting.
17.Since the allegations in all these writ petitions and the defence taken by the respondents are similar as found in the lead matter, we are not reproducing the facts and opposite version in detail.
Contempt Petition No.377 of 2012
18.The petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the State Election Commissioner, Secretary, State Election Commission and the Returning Officer, Corporation of Chennai, on account of their wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 14 October 2011 in W.P.No.23557 of 2011 etc. batch.
Contempt Petition No.1664 of 2011
19.The petitioner seeks appropriate proceedings against the respondents alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 14 October 2011 in W.P.No.23585/2011.
20.According to the petitioner, he preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.22859 of 2011 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to ensure free election to elect the Mayor and Councillors of Chennai Municipal Corporation to be held on 17 October 2011. The writ petition was taken up along with other writ petitions and the Division Bench was pleased to issue as many as six directions. According to the petitioner, in spite of issuing detailed directions, respondents have not made any attempt to video graph the election process. Similarly, they have not made any genuine attempt to take the assistance of paramilitary forces and police and to distribute them uniformly in all the polling booths. The respondents are therefore liable to be punished on account of their contemptuous conduct.
21.The third respondent, Returning Officer, Corporation of Chennai, filed a detailed counter affidavit denying each and every allegation made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the respective contempt petitions. The petitioner in Contempt Petition No.377 of 2012 has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 seeking a writ of Declaration. The respondents have already filed counter affidavit and their defence would cover this contempt petition also.
THE SUBMISSIONS :-
22. (A) On behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011, the learned counsel contended that :
(i)The Tamil Nadu Election Commission was in the know of things with respect to the large scale poll related violence in connection with the local body elections held earlier on 13 October 2006. Therefore, the Election Commission and the Returning Officer should have taken earnest efforts to see that such corrupt practices are not repeated;
(ii)The Election Commission convened a meeting on 7 September 2011 to ensure free and fair election and issued directions to the Returning Officers to take the assistance of videographers to cover the entire polling booths. The subsequent correspondence also shows that the Election Commission was laisoning with the Returning Officer, Chennai Corporation, to video cover the polling booths. The High Court direction was given only on 14 October 2011. Therefore, the Election Commissioner and the Returning Officers were having sufficient time to make arrangements for video recording. Even then they have not video recorded the polling process and thereby violated the order passed by the Division Bench with impunity.
(iii)The Election Commission on 14 October 2011 informed the Returning Officer, Chennai Corporation, that more than 5000 video cameras and laptops fitted with web cameras are readily available for being used in the ensuing local body election. Therefore, it cannot be said that time was too short to arrange video cameras to cover all the polling stations.
(iv)The Commission convened a meeting on 14 October 2011 and after receiving information about the order passed by the Division Bench during the afternoon, the Election Commissioner summoned the Secretary to Government, I.T. Department and Managing Director, ELCOT and directed them to procure sufficient number of video cameras to cover the polling process in all the booths. The communication sent by the Secretary to the Election Commission on 17 October 2011 shows that the Returning Officer has no respect either to the order passed by this Court or to the directions issued by the Election Commission. The said letter makes it very clear that the Returning Officer failed to honour the directions issued by this Court.
(v)The Election Commission and the Returning Officer in their respective counter affidavits contended that they have provided video cameras in almost 90% of the polling booths. However, they have not given the break up of booths and the details of 10% booths left out.
(vi)The petitioner in his complaint before the Election Commission clearly stated about the mal-practices committed in 239 booths and requested for re-poll. The Commission failed to consider the complaint and instead of ordering re-poll in 239 booths, directed re-poll only in 7 booths.
(vii)Though independent observers were also available, the enquiry report prepared by the Election Commissioner contains only the report of the I.A.S. Officers working in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(viii)The enquiry conducted on 18 October 2011 was an eyewash and as such the report of the said enquiry requires no consideration.
(B) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2001 would contend :-
(i)The petitioner, a practicing advocate, was interested in free and fair elections and as such, he approached the Election Commission even before the issuance of election notification with a request to video record the election process and to post sufficient police force drawn from the Central Reserve Police Force in all the polling stations. Even though the Election Commissioner has agreed to the said request and appreciated the valuable suggestions, the fact remains that earnest efforts were not taken by the Commission to conduct the election in a fair manner.
(ii)The respondents have violated the directions issued by the Division Bench. The non compliance of the mandatory directions should result in invalidation of elections.
(iii)The petitioner has given a representation detailing the poll related irregularities. The Election Commission was expected to look into the complaint and take a decision at the earliest. The Election Commission conducted a namesake enquiry and ordered re-poll only in 7 booths. Before the disposal of the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the Commission has not called for a report from the field officers to ascertain as to whether the allegations in the complaint were all true.
(C) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.24768 and 24769 of 2011 would contend:-
(i)The minutes of the meeting dated 7 September 2011 itself would show that the Election Commission was aware of the poll related violence in connection with the election to the local body held on 13 October 2006 and as such, they should have taken suitable action to ensure a free and fair election;
(ii)The polling officers have received several complaints from the election agents of the opposite party. Even though the opposition party candidates and their agents were attacked by hooligans employed by the ruling party, action has not been taken by the police and the inaction on the part of police enabled the ruling party members to engage in large scale bogus voting.
(iii)All the polling stations in the Chennai Corporation were declared as sensitive booths. That was the reason why Chennai Corporation was not included in the gazette notification. Once it is made out that all the polling booths in Chennai Corporation are sensitive in nature, suitable measures should have been taken by the Election Commission to videograph the process. The failure on their part would result in upsetting the election.
(iv)In spite of specific directions given by the High Court, sufficient number of policemen were not summoned from other States. The Election Commission violated the positive directions given by this Court and as such, repoll should be ordered in the named polling stations.
(D) The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Contempt Petition no.377 of 2012 reiterated the submissions made in W.P.No.24312 of 2011. According to the learned senior counsel, respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and as such, they deserve maximum punishment.
(E) The learned counsel for the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.1664 of 2011 submitted that in spite of issuing a specific direction by this Court, the respondents have not provided video coverage in polling booth no.141. They have also not deployed sufficient police force and as such, the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt.
(F) The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission by placing reliance on voluminous documents produced by the Commission submitted that the Elections were conducted in a peaceful atmosphere. The learned Advocate General would contend :-
(i)Every effort was taken by the Election Commission to ensure free and fair election to the local body.
(ii)Even before issuing direction by this Court, the Commission initiated effective steps to provide video coverage in all the booths. The original idea was to cover only the sensitive booths. Subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench, arrangements were made to provide video coverage in all the booths in the Corporation of Chennai.
(iii)The representation submitted by the petitioners were duly considered by the Election Commission and in fact, the two writ petitioners and 16 others were called for an enquiry on 18 October 2011.
(iv)The Election Commission sought report from the Returning officer. Similar reports were obtained from the three election observers nominated by the Commission to oversee the election process in Chennai Corporation. The Election Commission on the basis of these reports considered the issue and arrived at a clear finding that there was no merit in the allegation and on the basis of the recommendation made by the Returning Officer, ordered reelection in 7 booths.
(v)The petitioners have not challenged the report of enquiry and in fact, the petitioners were informed in writing with regard to the outcome of enquiry on 19 October 2011 itself.
(vi)The Election Commission took all possible steps to avoid poll related violence.
(vii)The voters and the public in general appreciated the measures taken by the Election Commission to conduct the election in a fair manner.
(viii)The petitioners have come up with stereo type complaints with a view to upset the election.
(ix)The State Election Commissioner was impleaded in his personal capacity. He is a constitutional authority and as such, the petitioners were not correct in impleading him by name.
(G) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Returning Officer in the writ petitions and contempt petition would contend :-
(i)The issue now raised by the petitioners cannot be compared with the incidents that occurred on 13 October 2006, which resulted in setting aside the election and directing re-poll;
(ii)The Returning Officer has taken adequate measures to ensure a free and fair election. The election was by and large peaceful. The Election Commission issued series of instructions to the Returning Officer, Chennai Corporation to see that video recording is done in all the polling stations in obedience to the order passed by the High Court. The Returning Officer duly complied with the said direction and 90% of the polling booths were covered by video recording;
(iii)Even with respect to the remaining 10% booths, video recording was done in a random manner. Therefore, the order passed by the Division Bench was substantially complied with;
(iv)The petitioners have not cited any concrete instance to prove that there were poll related violence and the election was not conducted in a fair manner with opportunity to all the electors to exercise their franchise;
(v)The affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are bereft of details. The Election Commission has produced the minutes of the meeting and other vital documents to substantiate their contention regarding video recording of polling booths, and posting sufficient policemen for security purpose. The petitioners have not produced any document to show that there were large scale corrupt practices.
(vi)The petitioners wanted this Court to set aside the election on the ground that the order passed by this Court was flouted. Mere allegation of disobedience alone is not sufficient. The petitioner should prove that the non-compliance of the direction materially affected the election of returned candidates;
(vii)The Returning Officer has taken sincere efforts to provide video coverage in all the 4875 booths. The absence of some of the videographers made the Returning Officer to cover 10% booths in a random manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Division Bench was not implemented in its letter and spirit.
(H) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, on the strength of the report submitted by the Commissioner, to the State Election Commission, contended that all the complaints received by the police relating to the elections were looked into by the concerned police officers then and there and appropriate action were also taken. Policemen from the State of Maharashtra were deputed to all the polling stations uniformly in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the affidavit filed in support of the respective Writ Petitions does not contain any serious allegation against the police. The petitioners have no cause of action and as such, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
(I) The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Election Commissioner and Secretary in Contempt Petition No.377/2012 and 1669 of 2011 made extensive submissions and made a serious attempt to demonstrate that the respondents have implemented the directions issued by this Court in spite of the limited time at their command subsequent to the order dated 14 October 2011.
The learned senior counsel would contend ::-
(i)The Election Commission has made detailed arrangements to videograph the entire election process in all the sensitive booths. When the meeting convened by the State Election Commission was in session, information was received about the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, steps were taken to videograph the poll process in all the booths within the jurisdiction of Chennai Corporation.
(ii)The Returning Officer, under the supervision of Election Commission, made arrangements to provide sufficient number of video cameras and laptops. The laptops were fitted with web cameras and the software developed by the Chennai Corporation was made available to all the laptops. The required number of personnel to operate those video cameras and laptops were also arranged. Sufficient publicity was given, so as to enable the public, students and professional videographers to register their names and to help the Election Commission to video record the election process. According to the learned senior counsel, some of the students, public and volunteers, though registered their names, failed to turn up on account of fear. Immediately, the Returning Officer took steps to video record the left out booths in a random manner.
(iii)The learned counsel on the basis of facts and figures contended that out of 4875 booths, 4333 were video recorded fully, meaning thereby, 90% of the booths were covered and the other 10% booths were covered on random basis;
(iv)According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioners have no case that the respondents in the contempt petition deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the High Court.
(v)The learned senior counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569, contended that there should be wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Court and only then contempt would arise.
(vi)The learned senior counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in and Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, further contended that in case the contemnor requires the assistance of third parties to implement the order and failed in his attempt, there would be no contempt.
(vii)The affidavits filed by the petitioners are bereft of details and with the available materials, it cannot be said that the respondents have either violated the orders passed by this Court or assisted the members of the ruling party to indulge in corrupt electoral practices.
ANALYSIS THE FACTS :-
23.These writ petitions at the instance of the Mayoral candidate sponsored by DMK, active members of the said political organization and the District Secretary of another political party challenge the election to the Chennai Municipal Corporation primarily on the ground that the Returning Officer failed to provide video coverage in all the booths and made no attempt to distribute uniformly the police force requisitioned from other states in spite of issuing specific directions by this Court on 14 October 2012. The respondents, on the other hand, had taken up a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the very writ petition in an election matter.
24.The affidavit filed in support of all these writ petitions contain a specific reference to the decision of this Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. State Election Commissioner [2007 (1) CTC 705]. According to the petitioners, this Court has already made the legal position clear that in spite of availability of an alternate remedy, writ petition is maintainable in an election matter.
25.Since the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the judgment in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. State Election Commissioner [2007 (1) CTC 705] [hereinafter referred to as 2006 Election Case], we propose to consider the facts of the said case and the law laid down by this Court in the said judgment.
26.The facts of the 2006 Election Case, as culled out from the pleadings and arguments before the Bench would read thus :-
2. On the day i.e., 13.10.06, when polling for election of 155 Ward Commissioners of Chennai Municipal Corporation were in progress, a special mention was made on behalf of one of the petitioner, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as AIADMK) to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for immediate hearing of the Public Interest Litigation on the ground that the ruling partymen, i.e., personnel of the 5th respondent, 'Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam' (hereinafter referred to as DMK), are committing serious irregularities, engaged goondas, caused large scale violence and after attacking candidates, partymen and others, captured most of the polling booths in all 155 wards. On an urgent mention, on 13.10.06 itself, the case was taken up and respondents were served with notice and on their appearance the case was heard in detail at the stage of admission for its final disposal.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-AIADMK, would submit that the Public Interest Litigation was filed in order to uphold the majesty of law, rule of law and for maintenance of truth and functioning of democracy in the local body elections expected to be conducted under the superintendence, directions and control of the State Election Commission. The basic principle of the Constitution was to achieve the administration of local bodies to serve the public at the basic level for which Part IX (Panchayat) and Part IX-A (Municipality) consisting of Article 243 or 243ZG was incorporated effective from 24.4.93 to achieve a democratic and republican institution from its grass-root level. It is alleged that the first respondent, the State Election Commission has been gained from the clout of the 5th respondent partymen and in connivance with the said party members, has allowed indulgence of large scale violence resulting in booth capturing. According to the petitioner-AIADMK, it had more number of supporters in the Chennai city, considered to be their bastion. The 5th respondent party, known for its atrocities, dare-devil activities, unmindful of law and order, etc., sensing that if the elections are held properly, the 5th respondent party may not succeed and so they pre-planned, scripted, rehearsed and dramatised on 13.10.06, right from the first minute of the poll, namely, 7.00 a.m. itself and adopted the following modus operandi in all 155 wards to rig the polls.
The rowdy elements were getting prepared the previous night itself with dangerous weapons like sickles, knives, broad blades, etc., and each of them went on rounds in vehicle allotted to them by the 5th respondent party and went to each booth.
With all such weapons, they entered the booth, attacked the polling agents of other parties mercilessly excluding the agent of the 5th respondent party and by forcible eviction, the booths were captured.
The rowdy elements were followed by the police, ironically not to prevent them, but to protect them while they were perpetrating the crime.
They stood by their side enabling the 5th respondent partymen to stack ballots forcibly seized from the polling officers and started piling it up in the ballot boxes by affixing the seal on the 'Rising Sun' symbol and other fraternal parties i.e., allies of 5th respondent partymen, which are contesting the elections.
4. It is further alleged that when the information of booth capturing was received by the headquarters of the petitioner party, efforts were made to contact the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, etc. From the few, who could be contacted, they were not in a position to respond. The Commissioner of Police and Addl. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, in a parrot-like repetition, went on stating that the polling was peaceful. While conversation was maintained with these officers, the injured candidates, the injured public and the injured partymen of the petitioner were trailing one by one and in batches to the headquarters of the petitioner party. All these were happening within a few minutes of the commencement of the polling. In every ward, such incident took place and hundreds of people were injured. Many of them did not want to get admitted in the Government Hospital, since Tamil Nadu police were well trained to book cases against the very injured persons at the instance of the 5th respondent party. Hence, they were getting their treatment done in private hospitals. According to the petitioner, such incident indicated how public are fearful of Government organisations irrespective of their position i.e., police or hospital or the revenue department. The IAS and IPS officers on whom the total nation is depending, it was alleged that those civil and public administration were hand in glove with the ruling party for small personal benefits. Information started coming from various booths and wards indicating that what was happening was not polling, but a pitch battle, wherein rowdy elements with the support of the 5th respondent partymen ransacked the polling booths and in many places the staff managing the booths were made to flee from the scene to save their lives and, thereafter, the ballot papers were seized and stacked in the ballot boxes in a leisurely manner. It was also submitted that of the persons, who captured the booths, finding some discomfort in operating inside the polling booths, those rowdy elements took the ballot papers and ballot boxes outside the polling booths and in the shade of a tree they started casting the votes in favour of the 5th respondent party symbol, "Rising Sun". A few courageous men and persons of petitioner and other political parties seized those ballot papers from them and brought the same to the headquarters of the petitioner party and the same was exhibited to the Press and public, where it could be seen that the Presiding Officers have appended their signatures already and the same was utilised by the partymen of the 5th respondent to cast the votes.
5. It was further alleged that when the General Secretary of the petitioner's party insisted that she has to vote, respondents made arrangements for police protection as she was under "Z-Plus" security. Hence, the captured booths were relieved for a short interregnum enabling her to enter, wherein no outsider was present, and after she casted her vote and left the scene, the booths were captured again.
6. Further, it was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the Chennai city was highly surcharged, the voters were terrorised, the candidates of opposition political parties and independent candidates were terrorised, beaten and attacked with dangerous weapons. They fled from their respective wards from which they were contesting and, thereafter, the polling agents, other than the polling agents of the 5th respondent party, were sent out and the booths were captured and votes were casted in favour of the symbol 'Rising Sun' throughout the 155 wards in the same pattern. In many polling booths, advocates were engaged as polling agents and for many wards, party advocates were engaged as chief agents. There were about 27 advocates, who were contesting as candidates of the petitioner-party and all of them have undergone the same experience of either having been beaten or threatened or thrown out or prevented or made to run away from the polling booths. It was submitted that the aforesaid act on the part of the rowdy elements indicated the level at which the police and rowdies were ruling the Chennai Metro and the police were not doing its duty, which is intended for them. It was alleged that in many polling booths, even by 12.00 noon, polling officers declared the elections over and they closed the gates and the police were informing the public that no one should enter the polling booths since all is over. It was in this background, it was submitted, that about forty advocates, who were present at the headquarters of petitioner-party represented to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and by explaining the same in person and on the permission of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the writ petition was hurriedly prepared and filed.
27.In view of large scale violation of code of conduct, continuous violence and the support given by the police and the Election Officers to the ruling party members to cast bogus votes after attacking the genuine voters on 13 October 2006, the counsel for the petitioner made a mention before this Court and the writ petition was taken up as per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 13 October 2006 itself.
28. Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya [as His Lordship then was] opined that in view of the bar imposed under Section 243ZG of the Constitution of India, and the forum prescribed under the Election Rules, the writ petition was not maintainable.
29.Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla (as His Lordship then was), did not concur with the said view and dealt with the poll related violence and corrupt practices in paragraph 104 of the said judgment :-
104. As is the practice in this Court, respective parties filed material papers in the form of typed set, which consisted of various documents, such as complaints preferred by the candidates, the Polling Officers, the transmission of such complaints by the State Election Commission to the Commissioner of Police and the compilation of such complaints received by the Commissioner of Police with details as to under what provisions of law such complaints were entertained and were being processed. That apart, on the side of the petitioners, several unpolled ballot papers, seals and other materials, which were stated to have been stealthily removed by one party or the other, were also placed before the Court, apart from the extensive media reports published immediately after the polling day. The respective counsel addressed arguments by referring to such material papers placed before the Court, drawing the attention of this Court to various particulars contained in different documents either in support or in opposition of their respective submissions. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on a perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions, the counter affidavits of the respondents and various materials placed before the Court including the media reports, the following facts and pleas of the parties are noted:
(a) Chennai City Municipal Corporation is bifurcated into 155 Wards consisting of 3295 Polling Booths.
(b) Previous Election to Corporation of Chennai was held in October 2001.
(c) Under Section 55 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act read along with Article 243-U of the Constitution, the term of Office of the Councillors of Corporation of Chennai is to be for a period of five years.
(d) As the Councillors elected in October 2001 would be laying down their Office in October 2006, Elections to the Local Bodies were announced on 19.9.2006 and notified on 20.9.2006 to be held in two phases.
(e) The first phase of Polling was to be held on 13.10.2006 and the second phase on 15.10.2006. Counting of votes was to take place on 18.10.2006 and the results were to be announced thereafter.
(f) As far as Chennai Corporation was concerned, the Elections to all the 155 Wards were held on 13.10.2006.
(g) While according to the petitioners, there were large scale violence, Booth rigging triggered by the fifth respondent-Political Party and the henchmen engaged by them and that such violence, followed by Booth rigging commenced from 7 a.m. onwards, a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.39400 of 2006 as well as the common counter affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.39457 to 39460, 39462, 39471, 39535, 39595, 39635 and 39713 of 2006, gives the following details:
(i) Complaints were received by the first respondent from various Political Parties like DMK, AIADMK, CPI(M), DMDK as well as some independent candidates and Polling Officers, alleging acts of violence and Booth capturing.
(ii) Such complaints were forwarded to the Inspector General of Police (Elections), the Commissioner of Police of Greater Chennai, the Superintendent of Police, the District Election Officer and District Collector/Commissioner of Chennai Municipal Corporation for taking immediate action at their end.
(iii) Out of numerous complaints received, 30 were listed and annexed to the counter affidavit dated 15.10.2006 filed in W.P.No.39400 of 2006.
(iv) 55% of the voters exercised their Franchise in the Polling held on 13.10.2006 as against 36% in the Elections held in October 2001.
(v) The details of 30 complaints mentioned in the Annexure to the counter affidavit related to various acts of violence, bogus voting, Booth capturing, security threat and snatching of Ballot boxes.
(vi) Complaints received by the first respondent were in respect of Ward Nos.8, 11, 20, 27, 54, 59, 82, 84, 91, 95, 106, 110, 117, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126 and 130 (totally 19 Wards).
(vii) The re-polling ordered by the first respondent related to Ward Nos.23, 35, 45, 48 and 149 (totally five Wards).
(viii) The five Wards in which re-polling in respect of 17 Booths were ordered to be held on 15.10.2006, were not one of those 19 Wards with reference to which admittedly complaints were received by the first respondent.
(ix) There were instances of snatching away of unpolled Ballot papers and empty Ballot boxes. While empty Ballot boxes were stated to have been recovered, according to the first respondent, missing Ballot papers were substituted.
(x) Of the 30 complaints mentioned in the Annexure to the counter affidavit of the first respondent dated 15.10.2006 in W.P.No.39400 of 2006, specific complaints of bogus voting and Booth capturing related to Ward Nos.125, 117, 120, 110, 138, 126, 84, 123, 147, 130, 11, 27, 122, 145, 124 and 54 (totally 16 Wards) and most of the complaints were made by the candidates themselves.
(xi) According to the first respondent, the re-polling in 17 Booths in Ward Nos.23, 35, 45, 48 and 149 were ordered based on the report made by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai in exercise of the requirement under Rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Thrid-Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Elections) Rules, 2006.
(xii) Missing of Ballot papers was also reported by the Returning Officers with reference to which also complaints were lodged with the Police on 13.10.2006.
(xiii) Apart from re-polling ordered in respect of 17 Booths, further re-polling was ordered in respect of 27 Booths after the filing of the Writ Petitions. (The first respondent in his counter affidavit dated 29.10.2006 filed in W.P.No.39457 of 2006 etc., stated that such re-polling in 27 Booths were ordered as suggested by this Court).
(xiii.a) Even in this counter affidavit dated 29.10.2006 of the first respondent in W.P.No.39457 of 2006 etc., it was reiterated that numerous petitions/complaints were received over phone as well as in person which were forwarded to the Police authorities.
(xiv) According to the Commissioner of Police, the authority of the Police at the time of holding of Local Body Elections was only to maintain law and order and the Commissioner of Police has nothing to do with the alleged incidents inside the Electoral Booths, unless the concerned Election Officer lodged any complaint with the Police authorities. The Police authorities faced some law and order problem after the Polling was closed and they were effectively handled by the Police authorities. 59 cases were registered, in which 129 people were arrested. Apart from the above, 30 cases of road-roko, unauthorised demonstrations and related offences were registered and 1216 persons were apprehended under Section 151 Cr.P.C. who were later released. That apart, nine other minor instances were quelled at the threshold and no cases were registered.
(xv) In 3295 Booths, no complaints were registered with the Police for Booth capturing by any of the Polling Officers and in respect of 17 Booths alone, irregularities were reported to the State Election Commissioner, resulting in orders for re-polling.
(xvi) A few sporadic instances were highlighted in some sections of the media and projected as if there was city-wide disturbance of law and order and Poll related violence.
(xvii) Such instances were blown out of proportion by the petitioners and the media and a false impression was sought to be created.
(xviii) The State Election Commission (the first respondent in W.P.No.39400 of 2006) was in constant touch with the Police authorities throughout the day and was monitoring the situation not only in respect of the City, but in respect of the whole State with which he was concerned.
(xix) In the counter affidavit of the third respondent-Commissioner of Police dated 9.11.2006 in W.P.No.39471 of 2006, the third respondent specifically denied the allegations regarding bogus voting and Booth capturing. It was also stated therein that no complaint was forwarded by any of the Officers concerned as regards the bogus voting.
(h) In the counter affidavit of the third respondent dated 9.11.2006 filed in W.P.No.39438 of 2006, it is stated that based on a complaint given by one Tmt.Devi, a candidate of CPI(M) against Thiru.Babu, MLA belonging to the fifth respondent-Political Party, a case was registered in CSR.No.236/06 in G.5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, which was subsequently registered as Crime No.778 of 2006 in the same Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 352 and 294(b) IPC and the MLA was arrested and subsequently released on bail and the case is under investigation.
(i) In the Annexure filed to the same counter affidavit, details relating to the complaints lodged with the Police by private parties as well as Presiding Officers have been mentioned. As per the details furnished in the Annexure, the following further facts can be noted, namely:
(1) Complaint relating to Ward No.35 was received from A.R.O. Thiru.Michael Albert, which was registered in Crime No.1222 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 135-A and 136-B, C and F of the Representation of People Act read with Section 66-M of the Madras Municipal Corporation Act and the said complaint related to destroyal of Polling materials and sealed Ballot boxes by a mob.
(2) A complaint was received from A.R.O. M.B.Nandakumar regarding the entry of a mob inside the Booth mutilating Ballot papers beyond recognition in a Polling Booth in Ward No.130.
(3)A complaint was received from Thiru.Sampathkumar, A.R.O. against some unknown persons damaging the Ballot papers and casting of bogus votes in Ward No.45.
(4) A complaint was received from Thiru.Thangabala, A.R.O. against some unknown persons alleging entry into certain Booths in Ward No.59, who were stated to have snatched the Ballot papers and Polling materials.
(5)Another complaint was received from the same Thangabala, A.R.O. against some unknown persons alleging entry into another Booth in Ward No.59.
(6) The same counter affidavit also mentions about certain other complaints received from the candidates alleging Booth capturing, removal of Ballot boxes, Polling materials, intimidation of voters, assault and violence.
(j) In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation/District Election Officer in W.P.Nos.39457, 39459, 39460, 39462, 39471 and 39635 of 2006, it was specifically stated that wherever complaints regarding snatching of Ballot papers were alleged in the Writ Petitions, the respective Polling Officers lodged complaints with the local Police and the Ballot papers were substituted immediately from the reserved papers. It was also admitted therein that some miscreants snatched and damaged the reserve Ballot boxes and as against them, complaints have also been lodged. According to him, the snatching of Ballot papers and spare Ballot boxes did not affect the Polling process. According to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, wherever miscreants disturbed the Polling process, re-poll was ordered, which was in the order of 44 Booths.
(k) The Director General of Police, the second respondent in W.P.No.39400 of 2006 filed a counter affidavit in one paragraph adopting the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, the third respondent. The DGP also filed a counter affidavit dated 8.11.2006 in the same manner in W.P.Nos.39595, 39457 and 39458 of 2006. Apparently, the subsequent counter affidavit of the DGP was necessitated because of another counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police (the third respondent), which was dated 9.11.2006.
(l) On behalf of the DGP, a set of papers were filed captioned as "Instructions" issued by him, wherein, in one of the Memoranda dated 25.9.2006, in paragraph 2(v), it was stated "While booth-capturing of the kind witnessed in some of the northern states is not a significant phenomenon in this State, there have been a few incidents of interference with the Polling process by theft or causing damage of ballot material."
(m)In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent-Political Party (DMK) in W.P.No.39400 of 2006, the statement relevant to the issue involved was to the effect that the AIADMK party-men were instigated by its leader to capture Booths and lash out violence and indulge in rigging activities and that attempts were made by the AIADMK MLAs and its party-men to carry out the instructions of their leader and as such, they indulged in violent activities on 13.10.2006. According to the fifth respondent-DMK party, the entire drama was a pre-planned one and stage-managed by the AIADMK in order to gain importance among the general public.
(n) There was a newspaper report dated 14.10.2006 to the effect that the State Election Commission was not in a position to respond to various telephone calls on the date of Polling, namely on 13.10.2006, since he had a sudden health set-back (diarrhoea).
(o) There was also a media report that one DGP (Training) by name Thiru.S.Ramani, that when he went to cast his vote at 9 a.m. in the Polling Booth located at Rani Meiammai School in Mylapore, he was informed by the Police in Mufti that the Polling Booth was closed due to violence and that he was also informed that he will not be able to cast his vote even in the evening, since the Polling Booth was once and for all closed.
(p) Large amount of ballot papers were placed before the Court, some of which contained signatures of the Polling Officers and the column relating to the signature of the voter and certain other details were however found to have been not filled up in many of such Ballot papers. Invariably, in such Ballot papers, the mark was found in the "Rising Sun" symbol belonging to DMK Political Party.
(q)Except the complaint made by one Thiru.T.K.S.Elangovan, Organising Secretary of the DMK, which was forwarded by the State Election Commission to the Commissioner of Police for taking necessary action at once and inform him about the action, all other 29 complaints which were filed before the Court contained the seal of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission transmitting such complaints for necessary and immediate action and report by Fax, signed on behalf of the Secretary.
(r) There was wide media report as per the newspaper clippings filed before the Court, reporting about the Elections held on 13.10.2006 captioned as under: "Blot over Ballot", "Chennai Corporation Code: Day of the Dhadhas", "Gang captured Ripon Building Booth" and "Bedlam in Chennai".
(s) Complaints were also preferred by some of the voters to the State Election Commission about Booth capturing.
(t) The report of the Observer-I of Corporation of Chennai addressed to the State Election Commission, stating that he received more than 500 calls, that he made physical verification and solved them immediately and majority of the calls were found to be false on field visits and that he also stated that he spent major part of the day in Zone Nos.8,9 and 10. Similar such report was made by the Observer-II and the Observer-III in their respective Zones of Corporation of Chennai.
(u) The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai in his report dated 15.10.2006 to the first respondent mentioned about snatching of Ballot papers by an unruly mob from the Polling station when the Poll was in progress on 13.10.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 13.11.2006) in three Booths in Ward No.15 and in some other Booths, namely 2304-W, 2304-M and 2304-AV. His report also mentions about the missing of Ballot papers reported by one other Returning Officer.
(v) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.39400 of 2006, in para 3 that " ... The first respondent is the State Election Commission headed by an IAS Officer by name Thiru.D.Chandrasekaran who is a close relative of a DMK Minister in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet. He is a conferred IAS Officer and is not a direct recruit. .."
(w) In the affidavit filed in support of different Writ Petitions, it is alleged that bogus voting was done in the various Wards and that complaints were lodged with the concerned authorities.
30.Having convinced that there were large scale violence, booth capturing, bogus voting and chasing the voters, who were in the booth, right from 7 a.m. on 13 October 1996, to exercise their franchise, F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J. observed that the failure on the part of the State Election Commission to react to the situation in the manner expected of him, was really an extreme and extraordinary situation which calls for an extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The large scale corrupt practices adopted by the members of a political party with the connivance of the police and election machinery made the learned Judge to order repoll.
His Lordship said :-
168. In my considered opinion, every one of the incidents and details referred to in paragraph 104 of this order, and the failure of the State Election Commissioner to react to the situation in the manner expected of him, was really an extreme and extraordinary situation which calls for an extraordinary remedy. In the light of the unprecedented situation that prevailed on 13.10.2006, which was also to a very large extent admitted by respondents 1, 3 and 4, namely booth rigging and bogus voting, which were also supported by the other materials including the media reports, it will have to be held that there was no free and fair poll on 13.10.2006. Further, when the State Election Commission, the first respondent as well as respondents 3 and 4 have not even attempted to remedy the situation for providing a free and fair poll for the voters to cast their vote in an uninhibited manner, it will have to be held that the said situation calls for an extraordinary remedy and cannot be equated to a normal case of an election dispute which can be allowed to be worked out in the form of an Election Petition.
169. Having regard to the magnitude of the violation in the conduct of the Elections to the majority of the Wards, namely atleast 99 Wards out of 155 Wards, it will be wholly inappropriate if it were to be held that the aggrieved voters or the candidates over the outcome of the Election results, should be directed to work out the remedy before the Election Tribunal. This is not a single case of any aggrieved candidate who lost in the Election, who wishes to challenge the Election results in the form of Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that the wholesale violence perpetrated in the Polling process was so grave that the concept of purity in Elections, or otherwise called as "free and fair Poll" was seriously impinged and thereby, the common voter was not in a position to exercise his Franchise in a calm atmosphere where he could have exercised his voting right for electing a candidate of his choice. Therefore, the case on hand cannot be equated to the ordinary case of election dispute and find out whether any such issue can be thrashed out in the Writ Petition or the party should be directed to work out the remedy before the Election Tribunal.
170. Having regard to the fact situation culled out from the various materials on record and the affidavits and the counter affidavits filed by the parties as specifically noted in paragraph 104 of this order, I am convinced that this case stands on a different footing, where this Court will have to necessarily invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to ensure that "free and fair Poll" is held and thereby, the purity in Elections as enshrined in the Constitution is ensured to the common voters.
31.Since the learned Judges of the Division Bench differed in respect of the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition, the issue was referred to a third Judge nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. While concurring with the views expressed by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. the third Judge, Mr.Justice P.K.Misra [as His Lordship then was] said :-
218. Keeping in view the observations made in Ashok Kumar's case and the observations made by this Court in the above unreported judgment, it can be said that though generally the jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked under Article 226 to interfere with any ongoing process of election and should not be invoked directly to interfere with any matter connected to election after the election process was over, it cannot be said that there is an absolute bar to invoke such extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, it cannot be said that a writ petition is not maintainable in all circumstances; rather it would be more appropriate to say that under special circumstances a writ petition would be maintainable in the matters relating to elections even before completion of the election process and after completion of the election process. What would be the exceptional circumstances in a given case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked is obviously a matter which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not possible nor desirable to lay down the circumstances in which such jurisdiction can be invoked.
32.With respect to the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition in an election matter, P.K.Misra, J. observed that in a fit case, it would be open to the Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33.While summarizing the conclusion, P.K.Misra, J. said ::-
"253(2) Any decision taken by the Election Commission is subject to the judicial review by the High Court, of course within the known parameters of such jurisdiction. However, the High Court is required to be very circumspect in such matters and interfere only in rarest of rare cases. Where the High Court comes to the conclusion that free and fair election has not been held and there is a mockery of democracy and the Election Commission has failed in its duty to protect democracy by ensuring free and fair election, the High Court can in order to protect the concept of democracy, interfere in such matters, even after the election process is over, notwithstanding the fact that alternative remedy may be available and notwithstanding the fact that some disputed questions are required to be decided. This again would obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and such jurisdiction is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases where the monstrosity of the situation so compels."
34.Since this Court in 2006 Election case formulated the "extraordinary circumstance test" to confer jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a writ petition in an election matter, necessarily, we have to consider the facts of the present writ petitions to ascertain as to whether there are anything in similar and as to whether there are any such extraordinary materials to exercise the equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
35.The writ petitions filed by the Mayoral Candidate and others proceeds as if 90% of the polling stations were not provided with video cameras. According to the petitioners, the direction issued by this Court for uniform distribution of policemen drawn from other states was also not implemented. The petitioners have alleged booth capturing in a general manner. The petitioner in W.P.No.24158 of 2011 named certain officer bearers of the ruling party, M.L.A.s and the son of the Mayoral candidate sponsored by AIADMK as the people who took initiative for doing such corrupt practices.
36.Though the writ petition filed in connection with the municipal Corporation election held on 13 October 2006 contains the details of acts of booth capturing, bogus voting, large scale violence resulting in registration of several First Information Reports, helplessness pleaded by the voters, total breakdown of constitutional machinery, collusion of polling officers with the members of ruling party, active support given by the police to the ruling party members to engage in bogus voting and the goondaraj, the present writ petitions does not contain any such factual details. Not even a stray incident with reference to a particular polling station was mentioned in the affidavit filed by any of the petitioners. The affidavits proceed as if the failure to comply with the order passed by this Court necessarily has to result in invalidating the entire election.
37. It is trite that in matters relating to election, the burden is heavy on the party who alleges booth capturing and other corrupt electoral practices. It is also a settled position that Court should ensure that the rights of an elected candidate is not lightly disturbed.
38.In normal circumstances, election petition is the appropriate remedy to challenge the election of a returned candidate. Rule 94 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat and Municipal (Election) Rules, 1996, provides that no election to the Corporation shall be called in question except by an election petition. Rule 97 mandates that election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies to upset the election. The material facts are nothing but essential facts, constituting the cause of action for filing election petition. Such facts should be pleaded specifically and proved like any other fact. In case, the election petition is bereft of material particulars it would result in outright rejection.
39.The petitioner in W.P.No.24158 of 2011 was the Mayoral candidate of DMK for the Corporation of Chennai. The petitioner wanted re-election to be conducted in 239 booths primarily on the ground that videograph was not arranged. Though the petitioner in paragraph 7 of his affidavit observed that there were large scale booth capturing and bogus voting after 2 p.m. on 17 October 2011, he has not given boothwise details. He has also not given details of booth capturing or bogus votes with reference to a particular booth. The allegations are bald and vague.
40.The petitioners in W.P.Nos.24078 and 24158 of 2011 made a complaint that polling which was at a low percentage initially got accelerated after 2.30 p.m. and the members of the ruling party had cast bogus votes. This allegation was specifically denied by the Returning Officer in his counter affidavit on the basis of the poll records.
The Returning Officer said :-
"8. I respectfully submit that, during scrutiny, in order to verify whether booth capturing was made in the alleged polling stations, Form 21 (Register of voters) which contains serial numbers of the voters who cast vote in the order of arrival to the booth was verified. If the polling is genuine then the serial numbers will not be continuous but in a random manner. When verified it was found that in all the booths where verification was done the numbers are in random order only. Similarly, the signatures of the voters were also verified, no discrepancy was found there.
9. I respectfully submit that, the Presiding Officer's diary containing periodical two hours reports were also verified. As alleged by the petitioners if there was any rigging after 3.00 p.m., the number of votes polled after 3.00 p.m. should have been highly skewed, whereas votes polled were evenly distributed. None of the polling officials, except seven, reported any mal-practice. Even Micro Observers did not report any anomalies."
41.The explanation given by the Returning Officer on the strength of the records maintained by the polling officers appears to be convincing. Therefore, we reject the contention regarding bogus voting after 2.30 p.m. as devoid of merit.
42.The Representation submitted by the petitioner before the State Election Commission was subjected to verification. The petitioner was given an oral hearing on 18 October 2011. The petitioner along with the writ petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011 and others appeared before the Commission. The Election Commission, after the completion of hearing, passed a detailed order overruling the objections and observed that the polls were conducted in a free and fair manner. The Commission has placed reliance on the report submitted by the Election Observers and the Returning Officer. In fact some of the observers very clearly stated that they have visited the polling booths indicated in the representation submitted by the petitioner and satisfied that the allegations have no factual basis.
43.The Returning Officer, Corporation of Chennai, in his report submitted before the Commission stated that out of 239 polling booths referred to by the petitioner in his representation, 11 polling booths were mentioned twice. Therefore, the complaint was restricted to 228 booths. Out of 228 booths, videography was arranged in 205 booths. Out of the said 205, re-poll was ordered in seven booths subsequently. In any case, only 19 booths were left out and even in respect of those booths videography was done in a random manner.
44.When there is a legal requirement that to invalidate the election of a successful candidate, the petitioner should plead primary facts setting out the cause of action, it cannot be said that in a writ petition, challenging the election with a further prayer to conduct repoll, at the instance of the defeated candidate or third parties, material facts are not required to be pleaded and proved.
45.Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is only an extraordinary remedy. In order to avail such extraordinary remedy, the party must plead and prove extraordinary facts and it should go to the root of the matter.
46.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 on the basis of certain newspaper reports contended some of the newspapers have reported that the election was not conducted in a free and fair manner. The respondents have also produced newspaper reports including the National Daily, "The Hindu" in support of their defence that by and large, the elections were conducted in a peaceful manner unlike the local body elections conducted during the year 2006.
47.It is true that this Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. State Election Commissioner [2007 (1) CTC 705] placed reliance on certain newspaper reports along with other materials to arrive at a factual finding that elections were not conducted in a fair manner. The Division Bench found that majority of the newspapers reported that the elections were not conducted in a free and fair manner, there were series of acts of violence and voters were made to return, rather chased away, by the supporters of a particular political party. The Bench on the basis of the undisputed materials found that there was total breakdown of election machinery and that resulted in ordering re-poll. Such violent incidents were not reported during the elections on 17 October 2011.
48.The petitioners now wanted the election to be set aside on the basis of their self-serving statements in the respective affidavits and the earlier representations submitted to the election commission. None of these writ petitions contain at least prima facie materials setting out the cause of action for filing a writ petition, in an election matter. The affidavits are bereft of details. There are no specific instances of rigging or booth capturing or bogus voting. There are only general allegations without any iota of proof.
49.The petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 is a practicing advocate. He has no personal knowledge with regard to the alleged discrepancies stated in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the basis of information furnished by third parties. Even according to the petitioner, he was given to understand that many booths in certain wards have been captured. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, he would contend that he was informed that certain wards have been captured with the help of the polling officials including police. The petitioner has no case that he personally visited all these booths or witnessed the corrupt practices and that made him to file the writ petition. The petitioner has not even mentioned the name of the Advocate or eye witnesses who informed him about the large scale booth capturing and rigging and the so called violence with the help of polling officials and police.
50.In case writ petitions are allowed on the basis of such wild allegations without any kind of material proof, it would nullify the elections of the successful candidates. In a democracy, will of the people is supreme. Mandate given by the people cannot be set aside without adequate reasons. The Supreme Court has indicated time and again that the will of the people should be respected and it cannot be set aside lightly. While testing the validity of an election, the Court should insist on primary materials. Mere statements alone are not sufficient. In case an election is invalidated, it would result in civil consequences to the elected candidate. It would tell upon the election machinery also. Therefore, the petitioner, in an election related writ petition, must produce reliable, cogent and satisfactory materials in support of his plea to invalidate the election.
51.The petitioners wanted the election to be set aside principally on the ground that in spite of the directions issued by this Court to videograph the polling, effective steps were not taken to comply with the said direction.
52.There is no dispute that wilful non-compliance of an undertaking or direction would constitute a civil contempt. However, the alleged disobedience by the Returning Officer or the Election Commission alone would not be sufficient to invalidate an election already held. There should be materials to suggest that failure on the part of the Returning officer to provide video coverage, materially affected the elections. No such materials are before this Court.
53.The State Election Commission and the Returning Officer in their respective counter affidavits very clearly stated about the steps taken to provide video coverage in all the booths. The petitioners have not produced any contra materials to disprove the said version.
54.The materials available on record clearly indicates that in response to the press statements issued by the Returning Officer, calling for applications from students, professionals and public to extend their support to videograph the election process, sufficient number of people registered their names and they were given necessary instructions on the day prior to the polling. They were asked to turn up on 16 October 2011 night or in the early morning of 17 October 2011. However, some of the volunteers and professionals failed to turn up as they were afraid of possible violence. By the time the Returning officer and the Elections officials were apprised of the absence of some of the registered videographers and students, polling commenced and the available videographers were employed in 4333 booths out of the total number of 4875 booths. The remaining polling stations were covered in a random manner.
55.The respondents have tried their level best to honour the order passed by this Court. There is nothing on record to doubt their bona fides.
56.The documents produced by the respondents clearly indicate that they have made every arrangement to provide video coverage in all the polling stations, in view of the large scale violence that occurred on 13 October 2006, in connection with the election to the Chennai Municipal Corporation. Before the Division Bench, the Election Commission filed a counter affidavit indicating the steps taken so far to ensure free and fair election. The details regarding the efforts taken to videograph the polling process; allocation of other State police force and other poll related arrangements were all mentioned in the said affidavit. It was only in the light of such arrangements taken by the Election Commission, the Division Bench directed the Election Commission and the Returning Officer to provide video coverage and uniform distribution of police force in all the polling booths. The Election Commission and the Returning Officer took all possible measures to provide video recording, as decided earlier and in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench. Steps taken in the said regard are all matters of record. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the history repeated and a situation has arisen once again to set aside the election and to direct re-poll in all the 239 polling stations.
57.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011 contended that the contents of the letter dated 14 October 2011 of the Secretary, Election Commission addressed to the Returning Officer would show that the Commission has initiated steps to provide video coverage in all the booths well in advance. According to the learned counsel, the letter dated 17 October 2011 sent by the Secretary to the Election Commission, accused the Returning Officer that he failed to arrange video cameras in spite of direction given by the Commission on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench on 14 October 2011. It was his further submission that till date, it is not clear as to whether the Returning Officer has responded to the letter sent by the Secretary to the Election Commission on 17 October 2011. It was further contended that the Returning Officer, Chennai Corporation, was indifferent to the issue and he never cared to obey the direction issued by this Court or the related directions issued by the Election Commission.
58.It is true that the Election Commission sent a Demi Official Letter to the Returning Officer on 17 October 2011. In the said letter, the Secretary to the Commission observed that the Election Commission has not received the compliance report from the Returning Officer with regard to the steps taken to implement the directions issued by the High Court. The Returning Officer was directed to offer his remarks within three hours. There was no mention about the time of dispatch of the said letter. In the said letter, the Secretary to the Commission, called upon the Returning Officer to submit a factual report regarding the installation of video cameras as soon as polling is over. The report prepared by the Election Commission with regard to the enquiry conducted on 18 October 2011 contain a reference about the compliance report submitted by the Returning Officer in response to the D.O. Letter dated 17 October 2011.
59.The compliance report submitted by the Returning Officer to the Election Commission was referred to in page 8 of the Enquiry Report prepared by the Commission.
60.The material portion of the report reads thus :-
"Efforts taken to arrange for video recording in all the 4875 polling booths in Chennai Corporation Area.
On receipt of information of the order of Hon'ble High Court, the State Election Commission immediately conducted a meeting with Chennai Corporation Commissioner, Commissioner of Police, Secretary to Government, Information Technology Department and Managing Director, ELCOT and gave instructions that the Corporation Commissioner in coordination with Secretary, I.T. Department and M.D. Elcot should arrange for video recording in all the polling booths. The State Election Commissioner has also issued a letter to Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Secretary, I.T. Department and M.D. ELCOT.
The Corporation officials immediately swung into action from the afternoon Friday (14.10.11) and contacted various professional videographers in the city. As the requirement is about 5000 nos., the M.D. ELCOT contacted the District Collectors of Tiruvallur, Kancheepuram, Vellore, Villupuram & Tiruvannamalai and requested them to mobilize laptops and send it to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai so that web camera can be fitted into the laptop to enable recording the polling process within the booths. The Corporation Commissioner also approached the Chief Electoral Officer Mr.Praveen Kumar, I.A.S. and requested him to lend web cameras of the Election Department. The Chief Electoral Officer has accepted the request of the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and allotted 2990 nos. of web cameras from the following Districts :
(a) Tiruvallur 300 nos.
(b) Kancheepuram - 600 nos.
(c) Vellore - 700 nos.
(d) Villupuram - 700 nos.
(e) Tiruvannamalai - 690 nos.
Therefore, the Corporation of Chennai has arranged 3109 laptops from 5 districts and 3684 web cameras from districts on Friday itself.
Sensing that this may not sufficient, a press release was given requesting for the services of (I) Private videographers (ii)Private persons (including students) who own laptops with camera and (iii) Volunteers who can operate laptops.
An advertisement was given in two leading newspapers. These three category of persons were requested to register in
(a) the Corporation website www.chennaicorporation.gov.in
(b) the toll free nos.18004252011 (8 lines) and 1913 (4 lines)
(c) the nearest Corporation Zonal Office.
Senior IAS officers of neighbouring states were also approached and they were requested as to whether they can mobilize and send videographers to be used for this purpose. The neighbouring District Collectors were also requested to identify videographers in their areas and send them for this purpose.
Various Engineering and Arts and Science College authorities were requested to identify students who are willing to come as volunteers for this purpose.
An announcement was also made that a remuneration of Rs.1500/- will be given to private persons coming with the handicam or a laptop and Rs.700/- was announced as remuneration for volunteers who are willing to operate laptop to be made available by the Corporation of Chennai. It was also announced that appreciation certificate will be given to the students who participate in the above mentioned programme.
There was also overwhelming response for the announcement. Totally 1140 volunteers registered in the website, 1454 volunteers persons registered in toll free nos. 2401 (including processional videographers) persons approached. The Corporation of Chennai was able to mobilize the services of 4996 persons including student volunteers.
All the laptops that were requisitioned by MD, ELCOT, from five districts were brought to Chennai by Saturday afternoon. All the webcameras allotted by C.E.O., from Tiruvallur, Kancheepuram, Vellore, Villupuram and Tiruvannamalai Districts were also brought to Chennai by the evening of Saturday.
The laptops connected with web cameras required specialized software to record the proceedings in the polling stations continuously. The software providers identified by the ELCOT reached Corporation office only on Saturday evening. Starting from Saturday night till Sunday night, the technicians loaded the software in all the laptops brought from various districts and 600 Desktops/laptops provided by Chennai Corporation. Through this exercise 3709 laptops/computers with webcamera were prepared by Sunday night and all of them were dispatched to various polling stations.
Various colleges provided list of students with their mobile numbers who were willing to volunteer their services for this programme. All these students and all the persons who registered in Corporation Website/toll free numbers were deputed to various polling stations on Sunday morning and they were informed about the locations where they should assemble. There were 18 Distribution centres spread across the expended Chennai Corporation.
All the videographers, students/volunteers with laptop and volunteers willing to operate Corporation provided laptops were allotted to all the 4875 polling stations in the Chennai city. The officials from neighbouring states stated that due to shortage of time and due to both the available days being holiday (Saturday & Sunday), expressed their inability to mobilize and send videographers. The neighbouring Collectors stated that the availability of videographers in their districts is very low and their services are required for videographing sensitive polling stations within their districts. Therefore, the service of videographers from neighbouring states/ neighbouring Districts could not be availed.
On the poll day, in some polling stations, persons who were deployed on duty (videographers, volunteers & Students) did not turn up on Sunday night/Monday morning. Polling has commenced in all the polling stations on Monday morning without any problem. When the officials of Corporation contacted the videographers/volunteers, some of them stated that they did not turn up for duty because of the fear that there may be some violence in the polling stations as happened in the previous local body elections. In spite of repeated requested by our officials, many of them did not turn up for duty. In spite of these hurdles, Corporation could arrange recording of the proceedings in 4333 polling stations out of 4875 polling stations (89.25%). However, efforts were made by the Corporation to ensure the following :
(a) At least one video recording was made available in all the 1397 polling location.
(b) Wherever video recording was not available in any booth, the Assistant Returning Officers were directed to go on rounds with a videographer and enquire about the fairness of the poll. Through this effort, all the polling stations where video recording was not done inside the polling stations were covered.
(c) There were some videographers attached to various police teams. The Commissioner of Police was requested to direct these teams also to videograph many polling stations and the same was done. The Corporation Commissioner also toured that entire stretch of expanded Corporation area and visited several polling stations and videographed the happenings. In all the locations, polling was by and large very peaceful and the agents present inside the booth responded that polling was totally fair and they were satisfied. The same was also video graphed.
Therefore, the Corporation took all efforts to strictly implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court and to ensure free and fair poll.
61.The writ petitions were argued mainly on the basis of certain letters and documents found in the typed set of papers produced by the Election Commission. The petitioners have no independent materials to substantiate their allegations regarding the absence of video coverage, booth rigging and bogus voting. The affidavits filed by the petitioners does not contain any material much less satisfactory material to prove at least prima facie that there were acts of violence, booth capturing or bogus voting with reference to polling stations in question. The petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 has given an approximate figure by contending that 90% of the polls were not covered by video recording. Even though the Returning Officer very categorically stated that out of 4875 polling booths, 4333 booths were provided with video coverage, the fact remains that no rejoinder affidavit was filed by any of the writ petitioners seriously disputing those averments.
62.The Election Commission has passed a detailed order on 18 October 2011 even before commencing the process of counting and on a careful consideration of the matter, ordered re-poll in 7 polling stations. Even though the report was produced before this Court on 24 November 2011, and copies of the same were also given to the counsel for the petitioners, none of the petitioners have disputed the statements in the said report. It was only during the course of submissions, the counsel for the writ petitioners disputed the veracity of the statements as contained in the report prepared by the election commission.
63.The petitioners wanted this Court to set aside the election to 239 booths solely on the ground that no arrangements were made to video record the proceedings. In case the direction regarding video recording was not complied with, the petitioner should have asked for re-poll in all the booths. They wanted reelection to be conducted very selectively. They have selected 239 polling booths for the purpose of re-poll.
64.The petitioner in W.P.No.24158 of 2011 specifically seeks repoll in 239 booths. There is nothing on record to substantiate his case regarding booth capturing and bogus voting. The judgment in the 2006 Election case was rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. There was no such extraordinary situation on 17 October 2011 so as to entertain a Writ Petition for the purpose of conducting re-poll. The petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy by taking shelter under the alleged violation of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner has taken a shortcut method to invalidate the election and that too without giving any particulars with regard to the alleged corrupt practices.
65.Part IX-A of the Constitution was inserted by 73 Amendment Act, 1992. The Parliament wanted the municipalities to function as local self government.
66.Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India prohibits challenge to election to the Municipal Council otherwise then by way of filing an election petition. Section 54A of the Chennai Municipal Corporation Act provides for filing election petition before Principal District Judge challenging the election to the post of mayor or councillor. The petitioner in an Election Petition was expected to submit a concise statement of material facts on which he relies. Corrupt practice is also a ground to declare an election void. Section 54(c) of the Chennai Municipal Corporation Act contains details of acts which would constitute corrupt practices. The petitioner in an election petition has to plead and prove the corrupt practices or statutory violations so as to enable him to get the election invalidated. The allegations regarding corrupt practices cannot be decided in a Writ Petition solely on the basis of self serving affidavits and counter affidavits.
67.Even if the allegations levelled by the petitioners are taken at its face value, it would not constitute an extraordinary ground to maintain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Division Bench in the 2006 Election Case contemplates an extraordinary situation caused by the total breakdown of administrative machinery, law and order, violation of the code of conduct and commission of corrupt practices. No such situation was prevalent on 17 October 2011 and that is evident from the voluminous documents produced by the State Election Commission. To overcome the statutory bar under Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India and Rule 94 of the Election Rules, 1996, the petitioners must produce adequate, reliable and positive materials and demonstrate that subject case requires immediate intervention of the Court and time consuming election dispute is not an effective remedy in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
68.The factual matrix does not make out an extraordinary case requiring extraordinary remedy.
69.The Election Commission has taken all the efforts even before the intervention of this Court to conduct a fair and free election. The minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2011, 14 September 2011 and 14 October 2011 and the numerous circulars issued by the Election Commission clearly shows that the Commission was determined to conduct the election in a free and fair manner without repeating the incident that happened on 13 October 2006 in connection with the election to the Municipal Corporation of Chennai. The intention of the Commission was to video record polling in all the sensitive booths. The counter filed before this Court in W.P.No.22307 of 2007 etc. batch also proceeds on similar line. The Division Bench as per order dated 14 October 2011 directed the Election Commission that all the polling booths of Chennai Corporation shall be compulsorily video recorded. The State Election Commission was directed to issue a notification indicating the sensitive booths in the rest of the State where video recording of the polling stations shall be compulsorily done. The direction issued by this Court requires procurement of more number of video cameras. The Commission issued a notification on 14 October 2011 indicating sensitive booths in the other parts of State.
70.The counter affidavit filed by the Returning Officer contains the details of the video cameras procured and the other arrangements made to employ public, students and professional videographers to cover the polling process. Therefore, the direction regarding compulsory video recording of the polling booths within the limits of Chennai Corporation was substantially complied with. There were only two days left after the order passed by this Court on 14 October 2011. The Returning Officer, within the short period, took immediate action to arrange video recording in all the polling booths. The failure on the part of students and volunteers to turn up on 17 October 2011 on account of fear cannot be taken against the Returning Officer to arrive at a finding that he was indifferent and flouted the order passed by this Court deliberately.
71.The other violation relates to direction no.21(4) and 21(5) dealing with posting independent observers and uniform distribution of police personnel requisitioned from other States. These two directions were issued on the basis of the statement made in the counter affidavit indicating that the State Election Commissioners of other States were requested to visit the State and observe the election process. The report submitted by the Inspector General of Police (Elections), contains an indication that he has taken steps to avail the services of police force from Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. The documents produced by the Election Commission indicates that only two Election Commissioners from other States have turned up in response to the request. Those officers were deputed to cover the entire State. The report submitted by Thiru.Muralidar Bag, I.A.S., Secretary, State Election Commission, Odisha indicates that he was deputed to various places in the State of Tamil Nadu.
72.The counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police states that three companies of Maharashtra police were deputed for polling duty. The three companies were divided into 12 units and they were deployed in sensitive booths under the supervision of Inspector of Police. Therefore, it is clear that police personnel from other States were deployed along with State Police in substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. The fact that police force from Karnataka and Kerala were not deputed to these polling booths would not show that security arrangements were not made properly. None of the petitioners have made complaints against the police. Similarly, the petitioners have no case that the police permitted the ruling party members to commit corrupt practices. In fact, direction No.25(5) appears to be in the nature of an allocation of force requisitioned and not a direction that police from other States shall be requisitioned. Therefore, the respondents have not violated any of the directions issued by this Court. In any case, the shortfall in the matter of video coverage cannot be characterized as one done with a malafide intention or to violate the orders passed by this Court.
73.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24108 and 24132 of 2011 contended that the report prepared by the Election Commission contains reference about the report filed by three observers only. According to the learned counsel there was no reference in the said report with regard to the report filed by the independent observers. The documents furnished by the Election Commission clearly shows that three officers by name M/s.R.Venkatesan, I.A.S., Ramachandra Meena, I.A.S., and Dr.B.Chandramohan I.A.S., were deputed as election observers for Chennai Municipal Corporation. These officers have submitted their report on 18 October 2011 and it was only on the basis of their report and the compliance report submitted by the Returning Officer, re-polls were ordered in 7 booths by the Election Commission. The petitioners have no case that the Observers have not correctly reported the poll process. The Compact Discs furnished by the petitioner in W.P.No.24078/2011 and two others were verified by the Election Commission and it was found that those C.D.s does not contain any incidents of violence or irregularities at the polling booths. This fact is found recorded in the report submitted by the Election Commission.
74.The copies of the representations given by the petitioners and others were given to the Returning Officer and Observers to offer their comments. Those Officers submitted their factual report with reference to those complaints. The Election Commission, considering the urgency of the situation, convened an emergent meeting of the Returning Officer and the observers at 9.30 p.m. on 18 October 2011 immediately after the conclusion of enquiry. It was only thereafter, the Election Commission arrived at a conclusion that the election was fair and free, except in 7 booths. The Election Commission, thereafter, rightly ordered re-poll in all the 7 booths. The petitioner in W.P.No.24158 of 2011 and W.P.No.24078 of 2011 were given a copy of the report on 19 October 2011.
75.The petitioner in W.P.No.24132/2011 filed an interlocutory application in M.P.No.4/2011 for a direction to the Returning Officer to produce the records of the videography done on 17 October 2011. The said application was allowed by this Court on 19 October 2011 and the Returning Officer was directed to produce the recorded C.D.s by 21 October 2011. The videograph records were accordingly produced before the Registrar General of this Court on 21 October 2011 in 23 boxes and they are now in the custody of this Court.
76.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011 that in spite of giving series of directions, the Returning Officer failed to comply with the same appears to have no factual basis. The Returning officer assured the Election Commission that he would make necessary arrangements for providing videography as per the order passed by this Court. It was only in that context, the Secretary to the Election Commission has sent a D.O. Letter to the Returning Officer on 17 October 2011. The Election Commission was originally under the impression that the Returning Officer has not taken any steps in association with the Managing Director, ELCOT and Secretary, I.T. Department to secure sufficient number of video cameras. The report submitted by the Returning Officer on 18 October 2011 contains the details of the steps taken by him along with the Managing Director, Elcot and Secretary, I.T. Department. The compliance report was accepted by the Commission. Therefore, the communication dated 17 October 2011 cannot be taken in isolation to form an opinion that the Returning Officer was indifferent.
77.The respondents have produced sufficient materials to prove their defence. The action taken by the Election Commission and the Returning Officer right from 7 September 2011 onwards clearly shows that they were not in favour of repeating the incident that took place on 13 October 2006 in connection with the local body election.
78.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the writ petition in an election matter is maintainable in case there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, warranting the exercise of such jurisdiction. However, that would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.
ANALYSIS THE LAW :-
JUDGMENTS CITED BY PARTIES :-
79.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24078 of 2011 placed reliance on the following judgments to substantiate his plea :-
(i)AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner)
(ii)AIR 1996 SC 135 (Surjit Singh and ors. vs. Harbans Singh and ors.)
(iii)2004 (5) SCC 26 (Daroga Singh and others vs. B.K.Pandey)
(iv)2006(8) SCC 352 (Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and others)
(v)2007 (11) SCC 374 (All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and others)
80.In Mohinder Singh Gill and anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, the Supreme Court considered the re-poll ordered by the Election Commission in Firozepore Parliamentary constituency. While negativing the request made by the elected candidate not to conduct re-poll, the Supreme Court extensively dealt with the wide powers of the Election Commission to ensure free and fair election.
81.In Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and others 2006 (8) SCC 352, the Supreme Court observed that the State Election Commissions are to function independent of the State Governments concerned in the matter of superintendence, directions and control of elections in view of the independent status given to the Commission under Article 243(k) of the Constitution of India.
82.In Daroga Singh and others vs. B.K.Pandey, 2004(5) SCC 26, the Supreme Court indicated the responsibility of judiciary in upholding the Constitution, and laws and the role of police authorities and their duty to assist the Court.
83.In All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association vs. Raghabendra Singh and others, 2007 (11) SCC 374, the Supreme Court, by following the earlier judgments held that in case a party to the litigation in spite of an interim order obtained an advantage, in breach of the said order, he should not be allowed to escape the consequences and the attempt of the Court should be to preserve status quo ante by taking away the benefits so obtained.
84.The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment in All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association in support of his contention that in case a party obtained illegal benefit in violation of the order, the Court would be justified in setting aside the benefits so obtained even in a proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned counsel, therefore, wanted this Court to invalidate the election conducted by the Commission, violating the directions issued by this Court.
85.The learned Senior Counsel for the Returning Officer in Contempt petition No.377/2012 countered the arguments by submitting that the question of restoring status quo ante would arise only in case the opposite party has taken undue advantage. According to the learned senior counsel, petitioners have not proved that the alleged violation of the order passed by this Court resulted in taking undue advantage by the returned candidates and as such, the question of passing an order in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Ragabendra Singh does not arise.
86.In Ragabendra Singh, a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High court passed an interim order to the effect that the authorities will be at liberty to process the applications in respect of grant of licenses of excise shops but no final selection of such shops shall be made without obtaining specific leave of the Court. In spite of passing such an order of injunction, in deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order, the authorities have caused an advertisement to be published in newspapers for holding lottery for final selection of excise shops and ultimately, licenses were issued. When a contempt petition was moved, the High Court held that the authorities failed to understand the implications of the order and as such, their action cannot be construed as an act of contempt. The matter was thereafter taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the respondents had acted in clear violation of the order passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court also found that pursuant to the auction conducted by the respondents, violating the order passed by the High Court, the successful bidders were given privilege to conduct business. In the said context, the Supreme Court observed that in violation of a restraint order or an injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing.
87.The judgment in Ragabendra Singh has no application to the facts of the present case. The respondents have made detailed arrangements to comply with the order passed by this Court. In fact, even before issuing directions by this Court, respondents have taken action to provide video coverage to all the sensitive booths. The respondents were in a position to arrange video coverage in about 90% of the booths. Even with respect to the left out 10% of booths, it was done in a random manner. The writ petitioners have not produced any material to show that the selected candidates have taken undue advantage of the failure to provide video recording in about 10% of the booths. The question of setting aside the election on account of the alleged violation on the part of the respondents to provide video coverage would arise only in case the failure materially affected the elections of the successful candidates. We are not therefore inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel to invalidate the election on the basis of the judgment in Ragabendra Singh.
88.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 cited the following judgments :-
(i)1970 (3) SCC 147 Rampakavi Rayappa vs. B.D. Jatti and ors.
(ii)2000(8) SCC 216 Election Commission of Indiavs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
(iii)2002(8) SCC 237 In re Gujarat Assembly election case
(iv)2005(2) SCC 1 Janak Singh vs. Ram Das Rai & Ors.
(v)2006(8) SCC 352 Kishan Singh Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.
(vi)2006(7) SCC 1 Kuldip Nayar & Ors. vs. Union of India and ors.
(vii)2009(1) LW 140 P.K.Sekar Babu vs. State Election Commissioner
(viii)W.P.(C)No.31830/2010 Shalini vs. Kerala State Election Commission
(ix)2002(5) SCC 294 - Union of India vs. Association for Democratic reform
(x)AIR 1975 Madras 270 Century Flour Mills Ltd. vs. S.Suppiah and ors.
(xi)2007(11) SCC 374 All Bengal Excise License Association vs. Ragahabendra Singh and ors.
(xii)1991(2) LW 295 Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Assn.
(xiii)2009(5) CTC 462 - R.Chandramohan vs. State Election Commissioner
(xiv)2007(2) LW 1 A.I.A.D.M.K., vs. State Election Commissioner
89.The Supreme Court, in Rampakavi Rayappa vs. B.D. Jatti and ors., 1970 (3) SCC 147, indicated that free and fair elections are the very foundation of the democratic institutions.
90.The Supreme Court, in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., 2000 (8) SCC 216, observed that if Court's intervention sought for has the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings, then judicial remedy should be postponed till completion of the election. However, limited judicial review is possible on the ground of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power.
91.In Re. Gujarat Assembly Election, 2008 (2) SCC 237, the Supreme Court underlined the duty of the Election Commission to conduct free and fair election.
92.In Janak Singh vs. Ram Das Rai and others, 2005 (2) SCC 1, Supreme Court issued various directions including direction to instal video cameras inside the polling booths to ensure free and fair election.
93.The Supreme Court in Kuldip Nayar and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. 2006(7) SCC 1 observed that right to vote derives its colour from right to free and fair elections, meaning thereby, the right to vote is empty without the right to free and fair elections.
94.The Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and ors., 1995(6) SCC 749, observed that High Court could mould the relief to do complete justice between the parties even though there is no provision parallel to Article 142 of the Constitution of India relating to the High Court.
95.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in Contempt petition No.377 and first respondent in Contempt Petition No.1664/2011 placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention that in order to punish a person for contempt, his action should be wilful and deliberate.
(i)Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569
(ii)Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1,
96.The Supreme Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569 observed that a person who complaints of breach of Court order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience.
The Supreme Court said :-
"11. No person can defy the court's order. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of the court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court's order."
WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER WOULD RENDER THE ELECTION VOID AUTOMATICALLY :-
97.The Supreme Court in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (2011) 2 SCC 532, held that non-compliance of the provisions of the Representation of People Act by officers who were in charge of the election would not render the election of the returned candidate void. The Supreme Court observed:-
"23.It may be mentioned that here in this case non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Elections Rules of 1961 was by the officers, who were in charge of the conduct of the election and not by the elected candidate. It is true that if clause (iv) is read in isolation, then one may be tempted to come to the conclusion that any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the 1951 Act or any rules of the 1961 Rules or orders made under the Act would render the election of the returned candidate void, but one cannot forget the important fact that clause (d) begins with a rider, namely, that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, must have been materially affected. This means that if it is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected, the election of the returned candidate would not be liable to be declared void notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or of any rules of the 1961 Rules or orders made thereunder.
24. It is well to remember that this Court has laid down in several reported decisions that the election of a returned candidate should not normally be set aside unless there are cogent and convincing reasons. The success of a winning candidate at an election cannot be lightly interfered with. This is all the more so when the election of a successful candidate is sought to be set aside for no fault of his but of someone else. That is why the scheme of Section 100 of the Act, especially clause (d) of sub-section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that in spite of the availability of grounds contemplated by sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (d), the election of a returned candidate shall not be voided unless and until it is proved that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate is materially affected. The volume of opinion expressed in judicial pronouncements preponderates in favour of the view that the burden of proving that the votes not cast would have been distributed in such a manner between the contesting candidates as would have brought about the defeat of the returned candidate lies upon one who objects to the validity of the election. Therefore, the standard of proof to be adopted, while judging the question whether the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate is materially affected, would be proof beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the pale of doubt and not the test of proof as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant."
98.The Supreme Court Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh, (2002) 1 SCC 160, reiterated the legal position that election of a successful candidate cannot be set aside on account of the fault committed by others. The Supreme Court said :
8. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with. This is all the more so when the election of a successful candidate is sought to be set aside for no fault of his but of someone else. That is why the scheme of Section 100 of the Act, especially clause (d) of sub-section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that in spite of the availability of grounds contemplated by sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (d), the election of a returned candidate shall not be avoided unless and until it was proved that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate was materially affected.
99.The Supreme Court in Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari [2012(3) SCC 314], held that mere non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or breach of the provisions of the Representation of People Act would not result in automatic invalidation of the election of the returned candidate. The relevant observation reads thus:-
"A mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or the statutory provisions noticed above, by itself, does not result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). The sine qua non for declaring election of a returned candidate to be void on the ground under clause (iv) of Section 100(1)(d) is further proof of the fact that such breach or non-observance has resulted in materially affecting the result of the returned candidate. In other words, the violation or breach or non-observation or non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or the rules or the orders made thereunder, by itself, does not render the election of a returned candidate void Section 100(1)(d)(iv). For the election petitioner to succeed on such ground viz., Section 100(1)(d)(iv), he has not only to plead and prove the ground but also that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected. The view that we have taken finds support from the three decisions of this Court in (1) Jabar Singh Vs. Genda Lal; (2) L.R. Shivaramagowda and Others Vs. T.M.Chandrashekhar (dead) by LRs. and Others.4 and (3) Uma Ballav Rath (Smt.) Vs. Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt) and others."
THE SUPREME COURT ON ONUS OF PROOF IN ELECTION CASES :-
100.The Supreme Court in R.P. Moidutty v. P.T. Kunju Mohammad, (2000) 1 SCC 481,held that the onus of proof in election cases on the ground of corrupt practices are not discharged merely on preponderance of probabilities, standard of proof being akin to that of proving a criminal or quasi judicial authority.
The Supreme Court observed::
14. It is basic to the law of elections and election petitions that in a democracy, the mandate of the people as expressed at he hustings must prevail and be respected by the courts and that is why the election of a successful candidate is not to be set aside lightly. A heavy onus lies on the election petitioner seeking setting aside of the election of a successful candidate to make out a clear case for such relief both in the pleadings and at the trial. The mandate of the people is one as has been truly, freely and purely expressed. The electoral process in a democracy such as ours is too sacrosanct to be permitted to be polluted by corrupt practices. If the court arrives at a finding of commission of corrupt practice by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent then the election of the returned candidate shall be declared to be void. The underlying principle is that corrupt practice having been committed, the result of the election does not echo the true voice of the people. As the consequences flowing from the proof of corrupt practice at the election are serious, the onus of establishing commission of corrupt practice lies heavily on the person who alleges the same. The onus of proof is not discharged merely on preponderance of probabilities; the standard of proof required is akin to that of proving a criminal or a quasi-criminal charge. Clear-cut evidence, wholly credible and reliable, is needed to prove beyond doubt the charge of corrupt practice. (See Ram Chandra Rai v. State of M.P., Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, Bir Chandra Barman v. Anil Sarkar, Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh and Amolakchand Chhazed v. Bhagwandas Arya.) The legislature has taken extra care to make special provision for pleadings in an election petition alleging corrupt practice. Under Section 83 of the Act ordinarily it would suffice if the election petition contains a concise statement of the material facts relied on by the petitioner, but in the case of corrupt practice the election petition must set forth full particulars thereof including as full a statement as possible of (i) the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice, (ii) the date, and (iii) place of the commission of each such practice. An election petition is required to be signed and verified in the same manner as is laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. However, if the petition alleges any corrupt practice then the petition has additionally to be accompanied by an affidavit in Form 25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in support of the allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Thus, an election petition alleging commission of corrupt practice has to satisfy some additional requirements, mandatory in nature, in the matter of raising of the pleadings and verifying the averments at the stage of filing of the election petition and then in the matter of discharging the onus of proof at the stage of the trial."
101.The Supreme Court in M.J. Jacob v. A. Narayanan, (2009) 14 SCC 318, observed that election cannot be set aside on the basis of allegations and counter allegations alone. The Supreme Court said:-
42. In a democracy many allegations and counter-allegations are made, and sometimes these are incorrect, but that does not mean that an election should be set aside straightaway on that account, as has been done in the present case, unless all the ingredients of Section 123(4) of the Act are clearly made out, otherwise almost every election will have to be set aside.
102.In Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh Jassi, 1999(9) SCC 386, the Supreme Court cautioned that setting aside of an election involves serious consequences to the public at large.
The Supreme Court said :
"40.(i) The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election process has to be safeguarded and the court shall be vigilant to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as re-election involves an enormous load on the public funds and administration.
103.In Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh, (2002) 1 SCC 160, the Supreme Court indicated the burden of proof placed on the election petitioner as under:
"3.The burden of proving such material effect has to be discharged by the election petitioner by adducing positive, satisfactory and cogent evidence. If the petitioner is unable to adduce such evidence the burden is not discharged and the election must stand. This rule may operate harshly upon the petitioner seeking to set aside the election on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomination paper, but the court is not concerned with the inconvenience resulting from the operation of the law. Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax the rigour of required proof.
4. The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost an impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e. acting on a mere possibility. It will not suffice merely to say that all or the majority of wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candidate. The law requires proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature."
104.The Supreme Court in Nand Singh v. Ajit Inder Singh, (2001) 10 SCC 685, considered the corrupt practices alleged against the respondents by the Appellant.
According to the appellant before the Supreme Court, the election agent of the respondent/selected candidate along with others forcibly entered into a polling station and snatched away the ballot papers from the Presiding Officer. The polling agent of the respondent and two other agents of Congress and CPM candidates of booth no.66A who were present there, were folding the ballot papers and putting the same in the ballot boxes. They were also putting thumb impression on counter-foil of ballots. The nephew of the respondent who was having a revolver in his hand, asked the Presiding Officer and other polling officers on duty and the polling agents of other candidates to stand quietly on one side of the polling booth and threatened that in case they interfere, they would be killed. The polling staff and the other persons were frightened while the two above mentioned armed persons in police uniform who were the gunmen of the respondent and his election agent stopped the security personnel and the voters from entering into polling booth. Thereafter, the election agent of the respondent and his supporters put about 100 votes into the ballot boxes. These ballot boxes were not having the signature of Presiding Officer. In the meanwhile, people started collecting there. After putting the votes they started firing in the air and ran away outside the boundary wall of the school where they had parked the car. The security personnel tried to prevent them but they ran away. Though the witnesses have given a detailed version before the Election Tribunal, Supreme Court disbelieved the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant. The Supreme Court indicated that there should be positive materials to prove the charge of corrupt practices. The Supreme Court said ::-
"13. A charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of a quasi-criminal charge. Evidence to be led in support of corrupt practice has not only to be cogent and definite but for an election petitioner to succeed, he must also establish definitely to the satisfaction of the court that the charge of corrupt practice, which he levels against the returned candidate, has been positively established. The onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to establish a charge of corrupt practice. The standard of proof required to set aside election of a returned candidate on a charge of corrupt practice requires strict proof of the charge beyond reasonable doubt."
105.The Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi,(2011) 11 SCC 786, very clearly stated that roving enquiry is not permissible during the trial of an election petition. The Supreme Court said :
"17. During the trial of an election petition, it is not permissible for the court to permit a party to seek a roving enquiry. The party must plead the material fact and adduce evidence to substantiate the same so that the court may proceed to adjudicate upon that issue.
106.The petitioner in W.P.No.24132 of 2011 has no personal knowledge about the facts stated in the affidavit. His case was essentially based on hearsay evidence. The author of the statement is not before the Court. Therefore, a question would arise whether such a statement which is in the nature of hearsay, would satisfy the term "material evidence" in an election matter.
THE SUPREME COURT ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE :-
107.The Supreme Court in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, (2011) 2 SCC 532, indicated the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
The Supreme Court said :
35. The term hearsay is used with reference to what is done or written as well as to what is spoken and in its legal sense, it denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also, in part, on the veracity and competence of some other person. The word hearsay is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say. Sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else and sometimes it is treated as nearly synonymous with irrelevant. The sayings and doings of the third person are, as a rule, irrelevant, so that no proof of them can be admitted. Every act done or spoken which is relevant on any ground must be proved by someone who saw it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears.
37. Here comes the rule of appreciation of hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-examination. The phrase hearsay evidence is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record whatsoever, proof of which is not admitted on other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted. That this species of evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to protract legal investigations to an embarrassing and dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its incompetence to satisfy the mind of a judge about the existence of a fact, and the fraud which may be practised with impunity, under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
108.In fact, in Kalyan Kumar, the Supreme Court indicated the reasons as to why hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
"38. The reasons why hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are:
(a) the person giving such evidence does not feel any responsibility. The law requires all evidence to be given under personal responsibility i.e. every witness must give his testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to all the penalties of falsehood. If the person giving hearsay evidence is cornered, he has a line of escape by saying I do not know, but so and so told me,
(b) truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition, and
(c) if permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud by saying someone told me that. It would be attaching importance to false rumour flying from one foul lip to another. Thus statements of witnesses based on information received from others is inadmissible.
109.Therefore, on a careful consideration of the background facts in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. State Election Commissioner [2007 (1) CTC 705], we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out a case to entertain a writ petition in an election matter.
CONTEMPT PETITIONS :
110.The petitioner in Contempt petition No.377 of 2012 and 1664/2011 alleges violation of the order passed by this Court on 14 October 2011 in W.P.No.22859/2011 etc. batch.
111.Contempt is a serious matter. The petitioners were expected to plead and prove that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to disobey the orders passed by this Court. There is nothing on record to prove the wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. We have already considered this issue in the connected writ petitions and answered the same against the writ petitioners.
112.Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines Civil Contempt :-
"wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court"
113.The very definition given to the word "civil contempt" indicates that the violation complained of should be intentional and deliberate. There should be an element of wilfulness so as to make the contemnor liable for action. The conduct should be deliberate, or to put it otherwise, it should be with necessary mens rea. In case, the contemnor requires the assistance of third parties to comply with the orders and he failed in his attempt to get such assistance in spite of his best efforts, it cannot be said that still he was liable for contempt.
THE PRECEDENT ON LAW OF CONTEMPT :-
114.The Supreme Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569 observed that deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Courts order is a must to punish the contmenor.
The Supreme Court said ::
"11. No person can defy the court's order. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of the court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court's order."
115.The Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, observed that in order to constitute contempt, the order passed by the Court should not require any extraordinary effort for its compliance.
The Supreme Court said ::
"17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines civil contempt and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. Wilful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case."
116.The Supreme Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, observed that an element of unwillingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Supreme Court said ::
"15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise."
117.The factual matrix clearly shows that there was no intentional disobedience and the respondents have made sincere efforts to implement the order passed by this Court. The petitioners have failed to prove that the respondents intentionally violated the order passed by this Court.
OVERALL CONCLUSION :-
118. For all these reasons, we hold that:
(i) A writ petition questioning the election can be entertained and the same is maintainable before this Court in the event exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are established, as has been held earlier in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v State Election Commissioner [2007 (1) CTC 705].
(ii)In the event a decision is called for on questions of fact not involving exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, this Court would not be justified in entertaining the writ petition and the questions involving factual aspect could be resolved only in an election petition.
(iii)The grievance of the petitioners that the order passed by the Division Bench on 14 October 2011 had been violated and it would result in automatic invalidation of election is unacceptable since there are no materials to prove large scale violations, poll related irregularities, booth capturing, rigging, bogus voting or any other exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to set aside the election by entertaining the writ petitions.
(iv)The directions of this Court dated 14 October 2011 to provide video recording in all polling booths had been substantially complied with, barring only a few polling booths even where random video recording had been done.
(v)There are no materials to suggest that the failure to provide video recording in about 542 polling booths out of 4875 polling booths had materially affected the election of the returned candidates warranting this Court to interfere with the local body elections.
(vi)The respondents have taken every possible effort and made all the necessary arrangements to comply with all the directions issued by the Division Bench on 14 October 2011 in W.P.No.22859/2011 etc., batch and as such, they are not liable for contempt.
THE RESULT :-
119.In the upshot, we dismiss all the Writ Petitions and the related contempt petitions. No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous applications are also dismissed.
(D.M., J.) (K.K.S., J.)
26.04.2012
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
tar
To
1. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
2. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
3. The Secretary
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
Arumbakkam, Chennai-106
4. The Returning Officer/Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
5. The Returning Officer
Madurai Corporation, Madurai
6. The Returning Officer
Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore
7. The Returning Officer
Erode Corporation, Erode
8. The Returning Officer
Salem Corporation, Salem
9. The Returning Officer
Tiruppur Corporation, Tiruppur
10.The Returning Officer
Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi
11.The Returning Officer
Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli
12.The Returning Officer
Vellore Corporation, Vellore
13. The Returning Officer
Tiruchirappalli Corporation, Tiruchirappalli
D.MURUGESAN, J.
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
(tar)
P.D. Order in
W.P. Nos.24078, 24132 and 24158,
24187, 24768, 24769 of 2011
and Cont.P. No.377/2012 & 1664/2011
26.04.2012