Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) to direct the first respondent to pay the casts of this election petition.

2. The brief facts in a nutshell are as under:

2.1. In the election held on 8.5.2006, admittedly, electronic voting machines were used in the polling stations and both the votes cast through electronic voting machines and postal ballot papers were counted on 11.5.2006 at Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Musiri and the first respondent has been declared elected by the Returning Officer with a margin of 53 votes.
2.2. Originally, when the election petition was filed, the Returning Officer was arrayed as tenth respondent and at the instance of the tenth respondent, his name has been struck off as per the order dated 27.7.2007 in O.A.No.350 of 2007 in this election petition.
2.3. As per Form 20 issued by the Returning Officer, the petitioner has polled 43,003 votes, while the first respondent has polled 42,784 votes through electronic voting machines. It is stated that 296 postal ballot votes were polled in favour of the first respondent and 24 postal ballot votes were polled in favour of the petitioner and therefore, by a margin of 53 votes, the first respondent was declared elected.
2.4. The election petition is filed alleging certain irregularities in respect of the counting of postal ballot votes. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 54 and 54-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for brevity, "the Rules"), in the process of counting, the Returning Officer shall first deal with the postal ballot papers and thereafter only deal with electronic voting machines. According to him, the procedure contemplated under Rule 54-A(1) to (7) of the Rules was not complied with by the Returning Officer.
2.5. It is his case that, on the date of counting, viz., 11.5.2006, at 8 a.m., the Returning Officer, who was expected to take up the postal ballot papers has not disclosed as to how many postal ballot papers were received and therefore, no particulars were given. The Returning Officer was busy in bringing the electronic voting machines to the twelve counting tables in the hall and therefore, he failed to perform his statutory duty.
2.6. It is stated that the box containing postal ballot papers was opened and the Assistants of the Returning Officer started opening the big covers containing declaration and small cover containing the postal ballot paper. According to the petitioner, on opening the big cover, the Returning Officer should have verified the signature in declaration forms which are in Form 13-A with the signature in Form 13-C and as to whether the serial number is correct and inasmuch as the Returning Officer has not verified the same, the procedure contemplated under Rules 54-A(3) and 54-A(4) of the Rules has not been complied with.