SANNIYASI PETITIONER Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order in" Election O.P. No. 8/97 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Villupuram, who by order dated 8-12-1999 allowed the election petition filed by the first respondent herein, set aside the election of the reyision petitioner as Chairman of Sankarapuram Panchayat Union Council.

(2.) THE first respondent, who was a candidate for the said post, tiled the Election O.P. alleging as follows: He represented Tami Maanila Congress and the revision petitioner represented All India Anna D.M.K. THE election for Sankarapuram Panchayat Union Chairman post was held on 25-10-1996. THE voting figures as announced by the Returning Officer were as follows: Total Votes 24 Total votes polled 23 Votes secured by the revision petitioner 12 Votes secured by the 1 st respondent 11 THE revision petitioner was declared elected. His election was void on the following groudns, viz. (1) Chandrasekaran, a Council Member representing Ward No. 1 was a "B" grade supervisory common cadre employee of Kallkurichi-I Co-operative Sugar Mills at 3, Moongil Thuraipattu. THE Sugar Mill was a body corporate controlled by the State Government and under Sections 34 and 243-F of the Constitution of India, he was disqualified to be elected as Council Member. THE Polling Officer illegally permitted him to vote in the election. He openly voted in favour of the revision petitioner. (2) THE revision petitioner was a Government Contractor on the date of filing his nomination and having subsisting contracts with Public Works Department. Highways Department. Forest Department, etc. He was not legally qualified to contest in the above election and vote. His candidature should have been rejected by the Election Officer. (3) THE revision petitioner bribed all the voters by paying Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh. Thus the petitioner was guilty of corrupt practice to win the election. (4) THE revision petitioner was a deaf person by birth and legally not qualified to contest the election. THE Election Officer had unduly rejected the objections raised by the first respondent. THE election petition was filed under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (Act 21 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE prayer is for declaring the election of the revision petitioner to the post of Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, Sankarapuram, as void and further declaring the first respondent herein as elected to the post of Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, Sankarapuram..

(3.) THE learned District Judge found that the revision petitioner had a subsisting contract during the relevant period and that he was disqualified from getting elected. As regards the other three allegations made in the election petition, the learned District Judge held that they had not been substantiated. However, the learned District Judge set aside the election of the revision petitioner and declared the first respondent as having been elected to the said post on the basis of his finding on the first point. As against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227.