M KUMARESAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents to permit him to be sworn in as the District Councillor of Ward No. 18 of Dindigul District Council and to permit him to participate in the further proceedings of the Council. Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K. Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents-1 to 4 and Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent.

(2.) The Petitioner as well as the Fifth Respondent contested in the election for the post of Councillor from Ward No. 18 of the District Panchayat of Dindigul. The election was held on 17.10.2011. The counting took place on 21.10.2011. Thereafter, the Returning Officer completed and signed the result sheet in Form No. 22 and made an announcement in terms of Rule 66 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules. It was also followed by a declaration in Form 23 as per Rule 67 (1)(a) and the forwarding of Form 25 as per Rule 69 (1) for publication.

(3.) However, on the ground that there was an arithmetical and clerical error, due to the wrong feeding of information in the computer by cutting and pasting the results from a few booths twice over, the Returning Officer appears to have withdrawn Form No. 25 issued in favour of the Petitioner and issued a fresh Form No. 25 in the name of the Fifth Respondent herein. Consequently, the Petitioner was not permitted to take oath. Hence, the Petitioner came up with the above Writ Petition.