K C DINAKARAN Vs. S P RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order of the Election Court in Election O. P. No. 42 of 1986, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, dated 19-1-1990.

(2.) Brief facts are the following :- Election for the post of Vice-Chairman of Olakkur Panchayat Union was held on 20-6-1986. The petitioner and the lst respondent were the only two candidates for Vice-Chairmanship. 58 Voters (Panchayat Presidents) participated in the election including the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 28 votes and the lst respondent secured 27 votes and the 4th respondent declared three votes as invalid. Consequently, when he was about to enter the petitioner's name as the successful candidate in the records, at the instance of the second respondent, two votes declared as invalid were counted again in favour of the first respondent, and ultimately the 4th respondent declared the first respondent as successful candidate securing 29 votes as against the 28 votes secured by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the declaration, declaring the first respondent as the successful candidate, the Election O. P. was filed. It is seen from the counting the alleged two invalid votes as void votes in favour of the first respondent. Pending Election Petition, the ballot papers were sent for, and after scrutinising the same, the Election Court has found that there was nothing to suggest that two invalid votes were counted in favour of the first respondent, as contended by the petitioner. The Court below also rejected the other contentions, and consequently dismissed the petition.

(3.) Before me, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted three points. One is that as many as 20 votes polled in favour of the first respondent contained marks behind those ballot papers, those votes must be treated as invalid votes as such marking is against Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils (Election of Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1978. The second contention is that the fourth respondent has not fixed the programme of election by giving the closing time. On account of that, one voter could not participate in the election. The third contention is that the second respondent, in his capacity as a Rajya Sabha Member, exercised influence and coerced the 4th respondent to count two invalid votes as valid votes in favour of the first respondent.