Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Answer :Yes. The ARO has signed it and has given it. I am producing the original of Form 17C from the file in which the counting supervisor as well as the agents of the candidates, who were present, signed. I as Returning Officer have also affixed my sign in the said Form 17C produced and the same is marked as Ex.C1.

Question :Do you know the number of NOTA votes in postal ballots?

Answer :Since there is no column of NOTA in postal ballots, there is no votes for NOTA.

Question :Is it correct to state that in both Exs.P13 and P15, there is a column for NOTA in postal votes recorded and 13 votes have _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & been recorded against NOTA?

(ii)Issue No.2:- Whether there was violation of Rule 54-A in counting the postal ballots?

Apart from the witnesses for the petitioner, the Agent of the first respondent as well as the Assistant Returning Officer admits that, there is objections regarding the validity of the postal ballots. Those doubtful votes were segregated and kept separately for the decision of RO. While the Agent for the first respondent had deposed that, there were about 500 doubtful votes, and they were kept aside for the Returning Officer's decision. The Assistant Returning Officer, who was in charge of counting the postal ballots had deposed that only about 50 votes were doubtful votes and was kept aside for RO decision. She is not sure the number of votes sent to her table for counting. She from the records states that 2971 postal ballots were received. However, Form-17C (Ex.C1) in which she has signed the total number of valid votes received is shown as 2589, which includes NOTA votes. This statement according _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & to the witness, excludes the invalid votes. RW-1, the Returning Officer had deposed that the total invalid postal votes is 382. Section 54 A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 lay down the procedure for counting of votes received by post. For convenience say, the above Rule is extracted below:-

CW-3 had deposed that about 50 postal ballots were found invalid _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis & during the course of counting. However, the Final Result declaration form indicates 382 postal votes were found rejected. If in the course of counting only about 50 votes were rejected, then nearly 332 votes should have been found defective for improper declaration or for other reasons. However, the Register Ex.C3 indicates that, 336 votes were rejected and 7 votes alone were found invalid. From total 2833 postal covers received, 343 votes were rejected/invalid. This figure contradicts with the final declaration which says the total postal ballots is 2970. CW-3 , the ARO of the counting table says the total postal votes is 2971. Valid votes including NOTA 2589. RO explains one vote found mutilated hence not taken up for counting If so whether that vote was ignored or classified under defective or invalid could not be ascertained from the records or testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, it is obvious Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 grossly violated during the counting of postal ballots. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in affirmative.