R RAJENDRAN Vs. VELMURUGAN T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sections 80 to 84, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), 123(i)(ii)(iii), 3A, 4, 135(1), 135A(e) and 65 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, "R.P.Act") read with Rule 54A of the Conduct of Election Rules, read with Rule 2 of the Madras High Court (Election Petition) Rules, 1967 to declare the election of the 1st Respondent from No.64, Panruti Assembly Constituency in the general election held on 8.5.2006 and the result of which declared on 11.5.2006 as illegal and void.

(2.) The Petitioner contested the 13th Assembly elections held in the State of Tamil Nadu as a candidate of All India Dravida Munnetra Khazhagam (in short, "AIADMK") for No.64, Panruti Assembly Constituency in the official symbol of the political party viz., "two leaves" symbol. The 1st Respondent - elected candidate represented Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and was allotted the official symbol of "Mango". Respondents 2 to 4 represented the recognised political parties and Respondents 5 to 7 contested the election as independent candidates. The 8th Respondent is the Returning Officer for conducting election to the above assembly constituency No.64, Panruti Assembly Constituency, who was struck down from the array of respondents by order dated 17.8.2007. There were 194 polling booths and total number of eligible voters are 1,75,294 and total number of votes polled in the said assembly constituency was 1,43,148 and the petitioner secured 54,505 votes and the 1st Respondent was declared elected by a margin of 148 votes. Levelling charges against Respondents 1 and 8, the Petitioner has filed the Election Petition alleging that the election is to be declared as illegal and void. In the petition, the Petitioner averred that inspite of his repeated and specific request to clearly demonstrate display of electronic gadgets Electronic Voting Machines (in short, EVMs"), the 8th Respondent has not shown the display properly to the voters and thereby the voters, who had come to cast their vote in favour of the Petitioner, were confused and their democratic right of electing the representatives of their choice was denied. The Petitioner alleged that the Returning Officer was very lenient and amenable with the 1st Respondent and votes of illiterate voters had been canvassed by inducement to favour the 1st Respondent and the said practice of the 1st Respondent - Returning officer clearly attract Section 123 of R.P.Act and the 1st Respondent is to be held responsible for the corrupt practice. It is further averred that the election was on 8.5.2006 and the postal ballot paper was issued only a day prior to the result of the election, which is incorrect and the 8th Respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated for postal ballots. Only due to the negligence and reckless attitude of the Returning Officer, the postal ballots were not handed over to the persons, who are entitled to the vote. The counting procedure contemplated for counting of postal ballots was also not followed. The Petitioner has further averred that in respect of Booth Nos.131-M, 131-W, 132 and 73 of Panruti Assembly constituency in Puliyur Kattusagai village, there was a massive booth capturing and illegal votes were cast in the said booth and inspite of reporting the same to the 8th respondent, no action was taken by the 8th Respondent in this regard. Alleging that the election is vitiated by corrupt practice of the 1st Respondent and his men and agents, Petitioner has filed the Election Petition to declare the election of the 1st Respondent as illegal and void and to declare the Petitioner as a duly elected member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Constituency No.64, Panruti.

(3.) Stoutly denying the averments in the Election Petition, the 1st Respondent has filed the counter contending that the rules regarding the postal ballots were strictly complied with. According to the 1st Respondent, Petitioner has not made any complaint about any irregularity with respect to the postal votes and there was no complaint from any person regarding defect in the postal balloting and also counting. The allegation of booth capturing in Puliyur Kattusagai is also denied. 2006 Assembly Election was the 3rd election using the Electronic Voting Machine and all the voters had been fully instructed as to how to use it and clear instructions were displayed in every booth and electronic and print media were used to publicize the method of using the machine and therefore the Petitioner cannot make any grievance in respect of display of Electronic Voting Machines. Denying any irregularity, the 1st Respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. The 1st Respondent has averred that the Election Petition has been filed only to harass the 1st respondent.