ERA SEZHIYAN Vs. T R BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order delivered by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court on 24/04/1987 dismissing election petition filed by the appellant. The appellant herein was the petitioner before the High Court and the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 herein were arraigned as respondents in the same order in the election petition. The dispute pertains to the election of six Members to the Rajya Sabha by the Elected Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The election was held, as scheduled, on 28/06/1986. The appellant and respondents Nos. I to 7 were the eight candidates in the field, all the nominations having been found valid. The 8th respondent was the Returning Officer. The polling took place, as scheduled, on 28/06/1986 and, immediately thereafter, the ballot box was opened and the votes were sorted out. the election was under the preferential system of voting and the particulars of the first preferences votes secured by the candidates are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_322_SUPP1_1990Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) OUT of the 33 first preference votes cast in favour of the appellant, one ballot paper was rejected by the 8th respondent, the Returning Officer, on the ground that the said ballot paper was marked by the voter otherwise than with the article supplied for that purpose. It may be mentioned here that the first preference was indicated on the said ballot paper by a ball-point pen with green ink whereas in the ball point pen kept along with the ballot box had blue ink. The working result sheets of the counting were prepared and announced by the 8th respondent. The particulars of the said working result sheets are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_322_SUPP1_1990Html2.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE second contention raised by the appellant was that three ballot papers which did not contain the figure I in the space intended for marking the said figure should have been rejected and the same were wrongly accepted. These ballot papers had been used for casting first preference votes in favour of the first respondent and if the same had been rejected, first respondent would not have been elected and in his place the appellant would have been elected. Both the mistakes according to the appellant materially affected the result of the election.