SAVITHA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had contested for the membership of Dhangalli Grama Panchayat, in the election held on 27/12/2020, was declared as a returned candidate from the constituency D.Salundi-II. However, the declaration of results were challenged by respondent No.14 herein by filing a election petition in Elec.C. No.5/2021 before the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore. The election petitioner had sought to declare the election of the petitioner herein as member of the Grama Panchayat under General(Female) category, as void; to declare the election petitioner as duly elected candidate of the Grama Panchayat of Dhangalli Grama Panchayat under General(Female) category after getting the votes recounted.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of there being a prayer made by the election petitioner that the tribunal may hold a recounting and thereafter declare the election petitioner as the elected candidate, nevertheless, the tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dtd. 15/3/2023, while allowing the election petition and declaring that the election of the petitioner herein to Dhangalli Grama Panchayat as void and further called for ballot box within a period of one month from the date of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without even holding a recounting and it is passed only on the ground that the election petitioner had made a written request for recounting, in accordance with law and the returning officer had committed a mistake in rejecting such an application and not holding the recounting. It was further contended that there could not have been a void left by passing the impugned order declaring the election of the petitioner as void and not further declaring the election petitioner as the returned candidate. Such a procedure adopted by the election tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(3.) Nevertheless, during the course of these proceedings, this Court had directed the Tahasildar, Mysore Taluk to do a recounting of the votes and forward the results to this Court. The said order was passed on 12/4/2023 and information was forwarded to this Court that the petitioner herein and respondent No.14 have secured 584 votes each. Learned counsel for the respondent No.14 had submitted that contrary to the information given to this court, it was declared that respondent No.14 had secured 1 vote more than the writ petitioner. Nevertheless, by an interim order dtd. 12/7/2023 this Court directed all the contestants including the writ petitioner and respondent No.14 to be present before the returning officer/Tahasidlar on 17/7/2023 at 11.00 a.m. and a direction was also issued to the returning officer/Tahasidar to recount the votes in the presence of the candidates. It was also directed that the entire proceedings shall be video recorded.