Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.So the election petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner through the Election Observer namely Mr.M.Karunakaran, IAS, informed about the malpractices, requested for recounting. On 03/01/2020, the 4th respondent herein ordered recounting of votes. After recounting, it was informed that Form 25 issued in favour of the revision petitioner herein is not valid. The revision petitioner did not accept the same and walked out of the counting centre. After recounting, it was found that the election petitioner secured 5871 votes, whereas the revision petitioner herein secured 5808 votes. So, there is a difference of 63 votes. Form 25 was issued in favour of the election petitioner declaring that she was elected. Pursuant to which, GO was passed.

9.By exercising the power under Rule 62, the order was passed for recounting the votes and counting the votes, which were left out. It was informed to the revision petitioner's husband namely Mangudi with regard to recounting as per Rule II(B). But he did not agree for the same. So the counting continued and concluded at 04.00 am. It was found that out of 11924 votes, only 11679 votes were found to be eligible. Out of 11679 votes, the revision petitioner secured 5808 votes and the election petitioner secured 5871 votes. Results were declared, Form 25 was issued declaring that the election petitioner won the election. The entire process was videographed. The process of counting was undertaken in the presence of the Election Observer namely Mr.M.Karunakaran, DSP, Karaikudi and other officials. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

86.As mentioned above, the election petitioner relied upon the number of judgments. So by way of the judgment in Ponnusamy's case, when there is procedural violation, it cannot be termed as 'due declaration'. So, at no stretch of imagination, premature issue of Form 25 in favour of the revision petitioner can be termed as 'due declaration of result'. Consequently the right of the election petitioner to seek recounting and the power of the officials to take the recounting process cannot be called in question as illegal. So, I find that not only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the continuation of the counting of the uncounted votes, but also recounting of the votes already counted was not illegal and it can be termed as a fair play at the instance of RW2, who is duty bound to ensure the fair counting.

95.Before this para, the last portion of the observation in para 15 in that above judgment may be reproduced for better clarification:-
“....And so we have to countenance an argument based on no pleadings, arising out of no issues and founded solely on errors, real or supposed, which are said to have happened to see the light of the day as a result of the recount and the re-recount. Even election petitions must end at some stage and they cannot, for the reason that elections are a democratic venture, be permitted to procreate points during the course of their pendency. As we were listening to the appellant's argument, we though we were hearing an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis independent election petition filed by the appellant in order to challenge the result of the recount.”