Vadivelu vs Sundaram And Ors on 10 October, 2000
12. Rule 107 of the Rules of 1994 relating to the election of Pradhan provides preparation of election certificate by the Election Officer. The return was summoned and it was found that it was signed only by Counting Supervisor. There was no averment or evidence led by the petitioner that the Election Officer was either supervising any other election or that the Counting Supervisor was authorised by the State Election Commissioner under Rule 4 (3) to exercise and discharge the powers of the Election Officer. The documents may have come from proper custody but that since it was not certified by the Election Officer, the declaration of result raises a strong doubt about the validity of the return, on the basis of which the result was declared. At least, it goes to show that the counting was not supervised by the Election Officer. It cannot be treated as a mere irregularity as in the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram (supra), but a gross violation of rules, which is a strong circumstance supporting the averments of irregularities in counting of votes.