K V MUTHURAMALINGAM Vs. SOLOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in Election O.P.No.18 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the orders dated 28.11.2002.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the election original petition, filed a petition under section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and also under Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, for declaration that the election of the revision petitioner herein is illegal and also to declare that he has been duly elected. On 18.10.2001, election was conducted for the post of Panchayat President, Malaramanadhi Panchayat. The revision petitioner as well as the 1st respondent have contested. The revision petitioner was working as a Contractor in Public Works Department as well as in Highways Department. He has not completed the work undertaken by him and it was subsisting. The 1st respondent also gave a representation on 03.10.2001 that the revision petitioner is incompetent to contest the election; but the petition was rejected by the Election Officer. On 21.10.2001, votes have been counted and the revision petitioner got 578 votes and the 1st respondent herein got 407 votes and ultimately, the revision petitioner was declared as elected. Since the revision petitioner is totally disqualified to contest the election, it is illegal and hence the petition. The revision petitioner herein and the 1st respondent in the election petition, filed a counter and denied the various averments. He has not taken any contract work in Panchayat Union at any point of time. No objection was also raised at the time of scrutinizing the nomination. The allegation that he has not finished work as undertaken by him is false. There is no merit in the election petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The 2nd respondent, Election Officer-cum-Block Development Officer filed a counter admitting the election which took place on 18.10.2001 and the contest by the revision petitioner as well as by the first respondent. The revision petitioner has not taken any contract work in the Panchayat Union and he had finished all the works undertaken by him. None raised any objection in accepting the nomination of the revision petitioner. The 2nd respondent had conducted the election in accordance with the Rules. The votes were counted on 21.10.2001 and the revision petitioner was declared as elected. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P-1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner in the main original petition / first respondent herein. The revision petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and the Block Development Officer was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.R-1 to R-6 were marked. The court below allowed the petition and declared that the election of the revision petitioner is illegal and declared the 1st respondent herein as elected. Aggrieved against this, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.