E PALANI Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition raises an important question as to whether the Returning Officer of an election to the Ward Member of a Panchayat is entitled to conduct re-election after announcing the result and declaring the contesting candidate, to whom largest number of votes were polled, as elected and also certifying the Return in the necessary form as per the first election.

(2.) THE petitioner contested to the post of Ward Member in Ward No.6 of Vattamuthampatti Panchayat of Salem Panchayat Union in the election held on 17.10.2011. THE fifth respondent was also a contestant. THE counting of votes was held on 21.10.2011 and in the counting, the petitioner and the fifth respondent had secured 68 votes each out of total 225 votes. As per Rule 67 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995, which is applicable to the election in question, if there is an equality of votes between two or more contesting candidates, and the addition of one vote will entitle any of these candidates to be declared elected, the returning Officer shall decide between the candidates by lot and the candidate on whom the lot falls shall be deemed to have received an additional vote and the Returning Officer shall then declare the result accordingly.

(3.) MR.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 would, on the other hand, submit that as the petitioner and the fifth respondent had secured equal number of votes, in terms of the Panchayats (Elections) Rules, lot was conducted and the petitioner was declared elected and the necessary form was also issued. However, having noticed that at the time of lot, the fifth respondent was not present, the Returning Officer again directed the election to be held on 24.10.2011. The procedure adopted by the Returning Officer, therefore, cannot be found fault with.