M S GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. P P DOMINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the election for the Chairman of Palakkad Municipal Council held on 9-8-1991 petitioner was declared elected. The losing candidate, the 1st respondent, challenged the election before the District Court, Palakkad in O.P.56/91. By judgment dt.12-2-1992 the District Court set aside the election of petitioner as Chairman and ordered a re-election. That order is under challenge in this O.P.

(2.) In the election held on 9-8-1991,33 councillors cast their votes of which 17 were in favour of petitioner and 16 in favour of the 1st respondent. Petitioner was declared as elected and was functioning as Chairman from that dale onwards. The election was challenged by the 1st respondent mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent (Vice Chairman) who presided over the meeting had treated certain invalid votes as valid which had materially affected the result of the election. The District Judge took the view that one vote cast in favour of the petitioner which contained a tick mark instead of 'X' mark as per rules should be treated as invalid in which case each of the candidates had secured 16 votes. Though the Chairman has to be elected in such a case by draw of lots, the District Judge directed a re-election in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The order is challenged mainly on the following grounds:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the relevant rules had been followed by him as the presiding officer and that petitioner was duly elected as the Chairman.