JOSHPINE Vs. NMOZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner questions the decision of the Second Additional District Judge, Trichirapalli. In the Election O.P. filed by her in O.P. No. 66/38, the revision petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 contested for the post of President reserved for women in Keela Perambalur Village Panchayat. As per the electoral roll, the first respondent's age at the time she filed the nomination was 19. As per Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no person shall be qualified for election unless he has completed his 21st year of age. THE first respondent was therefore disqualified to contest for the post. At the time of scrutiny of nominations the petitioner and other candidates drew the attention of the fifth respondent that the first respondent's nomination paper should be rejected on the ground that she had not completed 21 years. THE objection was over ruled by the fifth respondent. THE first respondent contested for the post of President. She indulged in various corrupt practices. More than three hundred persons, who were eligible voters had left India and were employed in several Arab Countries. THEy were not physically present on the date of the election. But, the first respondent brought several persons with the help of her men to the polling booth to vote in her favour by impersonation. Again, in many ballot papers the signatures of the Returning Officer had not been affixed. Those votes cannot be taken into consideration during counting. During the counting of the votes on 14-10-1996 this was also objected to by the petitioner's election agent. THE fifth respondent announced that the first respondent secured the highest number of votes viz. 1070 the petitioner had secured 563 votes and the other respondents secured votes less than the first respondent and further declared that the first respondent had been duly elected as President. THE declaration was illegal and her election had to be declared as void and the petitioner, who had secured the next highest votes should be declared elected. THE first respondent and the fifth respondent contested the election petition while the other respondents remained ex parte.

(2.) IN her counter, the first respondent stated that there was necessary evidence to show that she had completed 21 years, that the age given in the electoral roll as 19 was not correct, that the fifth respondent had rightly accepted the age of the first respondent as more than 21 on the date of the nomination. The first respondent further contended that the impersonation pleaded was all false, that the objection regarding the non-signing of the ballot papers was also not valid and that she had been rightly declared as the successful candidate and no exception could be taken to the same. The fifth respondent also supported the case of the petitioner and denied that there was any corrupt practice indulged in by the first respondent and that there was impersonation and further contended that at the time of polling, the contesting candidates and their agents were present and watched the entire election process and there was no objection at the time of polling or afterwards from any one much lless by the petitioner and her agents, that such an objection was raised for the first time in the election petition only, that nothing prevented the petitioner from taking necessary steps to stop the election if her contentions were really true, that the rules relatting to the election had been scrupulously followed and that if really there was any transgression, nothing prevented the petitioner from bringing it to his notice. She had remained silent and allowed the counting to continue and the result had also been announced.

(3.) THE only question falling for consideration is whether the acceptance of the Transfer Certificate giving the age of the petitioner by the Election Tribunal is correct. THE contention of the petitioner is that nobody connected with the certificate has been examined. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that,