Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On the side of the petitioner in the election petition, PW1 to 8 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Exts.X1 to X9(a) series were also marked. 1st respondent in the revision petition was examined as DW1. The learned Munsiff after considering the materials came to the conclusion that two among C.R.P NO. 490 OF 2009 Page numbers the voters examined as PW6 and PW7 had cast their votes in more than one ward including Chavadi Ward, and so much so, the votes cast by them in the above ward were void. On examining the ballot papers of those two voters, PW6 and PW7, it was found that they had voted in favour of the revision petitioner. Since the votes cast by them were void, those two votes were reduced from the total number of votes polled in favour of the revision petitioner. Votes cast in his favour on such deduction was found to be less by one vote than the votes polled in favour of the petitioner in the election petition. Election of the revision petitioner was thereupon set aside and the petitioner in the election petition was declared elected from ward No.14, Chavadi Ward of Kunnathukal Grama Panchayat by the learned Munsiff allowing the election petition. Order of the learned Munsiff was challenged by the revision petitioner preferring an appeal as Election Appeal No.5 of 2008 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge after reappreciating the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides concurred with the findings entered by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. Revision is directed against the concurrent decision so rendered by the two inferior courts setting aside the election of the revision petitioner and declaring the 1st C.R.P NO. 490 OF 2009 Page numbers respondent as duly elected from Ward No.14, Chavadi Ward of Kunnathukal Grama Panchayat.

6. The trial court when it passed an order for verification of the ballots earlier had entered a finding that among the voters examined as PW3 to PW8 only one of them had cast double voting in more than one ward rendering his vote polled in Ward No.14, Chavadi Ward void. That order passed by the trial court for verification of the votes having been set aside and the case remitted by this court in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the court had entered a divergent finding that two among the voters examined, PW6 and PW7, had cast double voting in more than one ward, according to the counsel. The finding so entered conflicting with the previous order is perse wrong and further it indicates there was no application of mind by the trial court to the materials tendered in the case, submits the counsel. The challenge so canvassed is found to be meritless. Before the completion of the trial, the learned Munsiff had passed an order of verification of the ballots. On the materials placed by the petitioner to the election petition and while passing such an order, it was held that he had established his case of double voting by PW7 alone. That order passed by the learned Munsiff was set aside by this court directing him to complete the evidence and then decide the question of verification of the votes to C.R.P NO. 490 OF 2009 Page numbers examine the challenge of double voting. After such verification and analysing the evidence, the learned Munsiff concluded that two voters, PW6 and PW7, had cast double voting and their votes polled in Chavadi ward have to be extracted from the ballots to examine for whom they had voted for excluding the votes cast by them for such candidate. Previously the learned Munsiff had expressed a view that PW7 alone had cast double voting has no significance when the order so passed by the learned Munsiff had been set aside by this court directing reconsideration of the matter. The only question to be looked into is whether the finding subsequently entered that PW6 and PW7 had cast double voting is based on the evidence let in the case. The finding so entered by the learned Munsiff that PW6 and PW7 had cast double voting after reappreciation of the evidence had been approved by the learned District Judge. In that back drop the challenge canvassed that there was a previous finding by the learned Munsiff that only one voter had cast double voting and so much so, the subsequent finding made that two voters had cast double voting is unacceptable as canvassed by the counsel does not have any merit.

9. The evidence let in the case has conclusively established that two voters, PW6 and PW7, had cast double voting, both of them, in favour of the revision petitioner in Chavadi Ward and also in another ward, Kunnathukal Ward. So, two votes cast by them in favour of the revision petitioner had to be reduced from the double votes polled in favour of the revision petitioner as those votes are void. Section 76(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act mandates thus: "No person shall vote at a general election in more than one constituency of the same level, and if a person votes in morethan one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be avoided". Deducting the two votes which C.R.P NO. 490 OF 2009 Page numbers had been cast by PW6 and PW7 in favour of the revision petitioner from the double votes polled in his favour, it was found that he has secured a vote less than the petitioner in the election petition. Since the petitioner in the election petition has secured more than one vote than the revision petitioner the learned Munsiff has set aside the election of the revision petitioner declaring the 1st respondent in the revision as the returned candidate from Chavadi Ward of Kunnathukal Grama Panchayat. The decision of the learned Munsiff as confirmed by the District Judge in appeal is found to be proper, valid and correct. Challenges raised in the revision against the concurrent decision by the two courts below are found to be devoid of any merit. The revision is dismissed.