R PIO FERNANDO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 14.3.2011, by which the second respondent by quoting the Election Code of Conduct has seized an amount of ` 4 Lakhs from the representative of the petitioner, which amount is stated to have been carried for the purpose of making payment to workers.

(2.) THE seizure letter dated 14.3.2011, which is as follows: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) RECORDS DELETED shows that an amount of ` 4 Lakhs has been recovered from C.P.R.Balakrishnanan, who is stated to have carried the amount on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that while it is the duty on the part of the respondents to see that the Election Code of Conduct is scrupulously followed, it must be ensured that under the guise of following the rules strictly, the innocent people should not be targeted and therefore, it is desirable that the Election Commission makes publication in the language known to the people of this State about the above said provisions. Moreover, as and when seizure is effected, it should be stated as to whom the citizen has to approach and what all particulars have to be furnished. It is also expected that when a seizure order is made like the impugned notice, it is the duty on the part of the Election Officer to indicate in the said order as to the next course of action, viz., as to which authority he has to approach and so on, and these particulars are necessary not only to see that the Election Code of Conduct is properly implemented, but also to make sure that it will not have adverse effect on the innocent and genuine persons.