JEEVA PANDIAN Vs. M IYYASWAMY THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Election Court (District Munsif), Kovilpetti in Election O.P.No.7 of 1986 dated, 2-2-1987.

(2.) THE facts relating to this writ petition may now be noted. THE petitioner and the 1st respondent contested for the office of Panchayat Board President for Vadakku Illanthaikulam Panchayat. THE election was held on 23-2-1986. THE petitioner was allotted pumpkin symbol and the 1st respondent was given Road roller as his symbol. On 25-2-1986, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner elected on his securing 559 votes as against the 556 votes secured by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said declaration, the 1st respondent filed O.P.16 of 1986, on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli on 4-3-1986 praying for a declaration that the election of the petitioner herein as Panchayat Board President was void and after setting aside the same to declare him as duly elected President. THE learned District Judge subsequently transferred the Election Petition to the 4th respondent herein on 18-3-1986 and the case was re-numbered as Election O.P.7 of 1986. Before the 4th respondent, an application was taken out by the 1st respondent in LA. 23 of 1986 for recounting the polled votes. That application was opposed by the petitioner herein. However, overruling the objections, the 4th respondent allowed the application for recounting and actually recounting took place. After recounting, the 4th respondent, by his order dated 2-2-1987, declared that the petitioner had secured only 550 votes as against 556 votes secured by the 1st respondent and, therefore, while setting aside the election of the petitioner, granted the relief of declaration, declaring the 1st respondent as validly elected President. THE present writ petition is to quash the above said order of the 4th respondent.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submission and I find no difficulty at all in accepting the argument of the learned Advocate General that the institution of the Election Petition was improper and the further transfer will not cure the initi. 'want of jurisdiction, and consequently, the order passed by the 4th respondent is null and void.