GOVINDARAJ Vs. UTHIRAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRU Govindaraj the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Panchayat Election Tribunal, Mannargudi dismissing O. P. No. 14 of 1970 filed by him under Section 2 (1) of Notification 10 of the Madras Panchayats act to set aside the election of the first respondent Thiru Uthirapathi after recounting the votes and to declare him (revision petitioner) as the successful candidate in the Panchayat Board President Election held on 31-7-1970.

(2.) ON counting the votes the Chief Presiding Officer held that, out of 1408 votes polled, the petitioner secured 515 votes, the first respondent 523 votes and the second respondent 299 votes; and 71 votes were declared invalid. Various allegations were made in support of the application for setting aside the election of the first respondent; but the only point now pressed in the course of arguments is that the Panchayat Election Tribunal, was wrong in rejecting the petitioner's request for a scrutiny of 71 votes declared invalid by the Chief Presiding Officer. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1, his election agent as P. W. 2 and another voter as P. W. 3; and the first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1. On a survey of the entire oral evidence, the Panchayat Election Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's plea for recount of the invalid votes, holding that he had not made out a case by the oral evidence adduced by him for recount of the 71 invalid votes.

(3.) THE learned counsel contends that the Panchayat Election Tribunal was in error in deciding the plea by reference to the oral evidence adduced by the parties and that he ought to have decided the question by reference only to the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by him in support of the application. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pleads that the panchayat Election Tribunal was justified under the law in deciding the question of the recount of the invalid votes by reference to the oral evidence adduced by the parties and that a decision on the facts alleged in the affidavit in support of the application is not warranted by the provisions of the Panchayat Act or the rules framed thereunder.