M. ANDI AMBALAM Vs. P. MALAICHAMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the first respondent contested the election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the Melur North Constituency, Madurai district, that took place on 7th March, 1971. The Returning Officer, fourth respondent, declared on 11th March, 1971, that the first respondent had been returned by a margin of 127 votes. The first respondent was said to have obtained 37,337 votes and the petitioner was said to have obtained 37,210 votes. There were 3,381 invalid votes. Before the result was announced, the petitioner asked for recounting of the votes from the eighth round, the total rounds being eleven. The Returning Officer passed an order for recounting of the invalid votes, but did not accede to the request for recounting from the eighth round. But subsequently he did not implement that order for recounting the invalid votes and declared the results. This petition was presented on 23rd April, 1971 under Sections 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to declare the election of the first respondent void and to declare the petitioner as having been duly elected after ordering recount. Various allegations have been made in the petition questioning the correctness of the preparation of the electoral rolls. Those contentions would be seen from a perusal of the issues framed in the case. The petitioner has also alleged that the counting was vitiated on account of several irregularities committed at the time of the counting. The petitioner has referred to the visit of one O.P. Raman, Minister to the counting hall at the time when the counting was going on and alleged that on account of the said visit, confusion was created inside the counting hall materially affecting the counting. There is also an allegation of corrupt practice. It is alleged that the first respondent, with the help of able -bodied men, prevented about 200 Harijans from voting by intimidation, threat and violence.

(2.) THE second respondent, Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, the third respondent, Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the fourth respondent, Returning Officer, who is also the Electoral Registration Officer, have filed separate counter -statements denying the petitioner's allegations regarding the preparation of the electoral rolls and further contending that the electoral rolls were prepared in accordance with law, and that the question of validity of the preparation of the electoral rolls cannot be a subject -matter of an enquiry in an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegation that the counting was not done properly is also denied by the fourth respondent.

(3.) ON the contentions of the parties, the, following issues were framed for trial: