THANGALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. ARUNACHALAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by one Thangalakshmi Ammal for setting aside the order of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing her Writ Petition No. 1018 of 1956.

(2.) THE facts are briefly these : The appellant had stood for election from Ward No. 13 of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality, a double member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the scheduled castes. The appellant and respondents 1 to 7 were the eight candidates who stood for the election held on 10th October, 1955. Respondents 2, 3 and 7 alone were eligible to stand for the reserved seat. Respondent 3, who obtained 680 votes, was declared elected to the reserved seat. The appellant, who got 653 votes, as against the 2nd respondent who polled 652, was declared elected to the non -reserved seat on the strength of his having secured one more vote. The 1st respondent obtained only 616 votes. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 138 of 1956 to set aside the election of both the candidates who had been declared successful. The Election Commissioner pointed out that no allegation of the commission of any corrupt practice by the candidates or by their agents had been mentioned and pressed for adjudication, and that the election had been sought to be avoided only on the ground that the irregularities in the conduct of the election had materially affected the final result of the election. He found, after a scrutiny of the votes cast, with the help of his clerks the candidates themselves being absent (1) that 158 voters polled their votes at wrong booths, and that the reception of their votes was in contravention of Rule 27 -A (1)(c) of the Rules for Conduct of Election of Municipal Councillors : (2) that there were 12 instances where the same voter had voted twice ; (3) that there were two -instances , of personation of dead voters ; (4) and that there were four instances -of personation of living voters. He held applying these facts, to the facts of this election, that the results of the election had been materially affected by the improper reception of the above votes in the final counting by the Returning Officer. Her therefore, set aside the election, and ordered a fresh election.

(3.) SOME minor contentions, which were raised before Rajagopalan, J., are not now raised before us by Mr. Jagadisan, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The most important of these was that the Election Commissioner did not count these votes in the presence of the candidates, and that this contravened the rules of natural justice and vitiated his counting. But, as it was not alleged that the counting, as. a matter of fact, was not correct, or that the Election Commissioner had acted wrongly or with improper motive, Rajagopalan, J., negatived that contention, and Mr. Jagadisan did not very properly raise it again before us. Some things like examination for age or impotency or venereal disease, need not be done of one party, in the presence of the other by doctors etc.