MUTHYUKUMARASWAMISWAMI PILLAI Vs. MUTHUKATHA PILLAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of SRINIVASAN J., in Writ Petition No. 615 of 1963. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of this appeal are briefly the following.

(2.) For the election of the President of the Panchayat Board of Marudandakurichi village, the election officer, the Revenue Inspector, fixed the date 24th of June 1958. Notice of this meeting was given on 19th June 1958. Under Rule 2(2)(ii) of the rules relevant to the conduct of election of Presidents and Vice -Presidents of Panchayats issued in G.O. Ms. No. 602, Local Administration, dated 5th April 1958, notice of the date and hour of the meeting shall be given to the members, at least five clear days previous to the date of the meeting. But unfortunately no election took place on the notified, date 24th June 1958, because the Revenue Inspector for some reason which is not apparent, did not turn up in the village on that date. He turned up in the village only on 25th June 1958, and then adopted a curious procedure. He summoned all the members orally and conducted a meeting. The Appellant before us, one of the members thus summoned, strenuously objected to the holding of the meeting, on the ground that it was being irregularly convened and conducted. But the Revenue Inspector did not listen to his objection, and thereupon the Appellant withdrew. Then the members present proposed two names as candidates, namely, the names of the Appellant and the first Respondent. No ballot boxes were provided, and no secrecy of voting was observed. At the election thus held, the Appellant got five votes while the first Respondent got six votes. The Revenue Inspector then drew up a record of proceedings in which, he mentioned that the election had taken on the 24th of June 1958, and declared the first Respondent as having been elected.

(3.) The Appellant filed an election petition before the Election Commissioner, who found that the election took place only on the 25th of June 1958, and that the record of the proceedings drawn up by the Revenue Inspector to the effect that the meeting was held on 24th June 1958, was a wholly fabricated record. The Election Commissioner declared the election void. The first Respondent then filed Writ Petition No. 908 of 1960. It came up before VEERASWAMI J., who observed that the Election Commissioner in setting aside the election had failed to give a finding under Rule 11(c) of the rules, as to whether the result of the election stood materially affected. Consequent upon this view, he set aside the order of the Election Commissioner and directed that the election petition should be disposed of afresh. At the same time, the learned Judge also observed that the findings already recorded by the Election Commissioner should be retained, namely, that the Election did not take place on 24th June 1958 but on 25th June 1958, that no ballot boxes had been provided and that there had not been five clear days notice of election as required by the rules. After the above order, the Election Commissioner reheard the matter and upheld the election of the first Respondent. The Appellant then filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the order of the Election Commissioner was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore should be quashed by a writ of certiorari.