R NATARAJAN Vs. STATE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order and Decretal Order, dated 16.9.2009 made in E.O.P. No. 7 of 2008 on the file of the Panchayat Election Court/District Court, Tiruvarur, declaring the third respondent as elected President of the Athichozhamangalam Village, Tiruvarur District, in the election held on 13.10.2006 as invalid and direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to re-count the votes polled in the president election for Athichozhamangalam Village and declare the result again.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that on 13.10.2006, Panchayat election was conducted for electing the President for Athichozhamangalam village Panchayat. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 herein had filed their nominations before the second respondent, Chief Election Officer/Block Development Officer, Koradacherry, Tiruvarur District and after the election was over, the votes were counted on 18.10.2006. The petitioner herein has submitted that there are two wards for the Athichozhamangalam village Panchayat and the total number of votes polled were 540 and two postal votes were also received, out of which, one postal vote was polled in favour of third respondent and the other was polled in favour of the fifth respondent. The third respondent was announced to have polled 182 votes and declared elected by the second respondent. The petitioner was announced to have secured 178 votes, the fourth and fifth respondents respectively secured 131 votes and 29 votes, as announced by the second respondent herein. The petitioner has further stated that during the counting, there was barbed wire fencing, between the candidates or their agents and the place of counting. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was shown undue favour by the second respondent and his subordinates, as he was supported by the ruling party.

(3.) MR. B. Ramamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that there was only a difference of 3 votes between the petitioner and the third respondent, apart from one postal vote. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the aforesaid Aruldas, Saravanan and Devibala have been stated as voters of ward number 1, Athichozhamangalam village at D. No. 111 and 151 respectively and they voted accordingly, on 13.10.2006. The very same three persons subsequently voted, as per the voters list relating to the second ward of Arasur village, Sulur Panchayat union, Coimbatore District on 15.10.2006.