THIMIAE GOWDER Vs. K R KANNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the judgement of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif) Coimbatore, in O.P. 8 of 1986. The petitioner, the first respondent and six other persons contested the election to the office of President of Kemmarampalayam Village Panchayat, which was held on 23-2-1986. Out of a total of 2277 votes polled, the petitioner secured 690 votes, while, the first respondent in this civil revision petition obtained 521 votes. On the basis of the votes so secured by the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner was declared elected. The first respondent in this civil revision petition challenged the election of the petitioner as the President of Kemmarampalayam village Panchayat, on the ground that the petitioner had incurred a statutory disqualification for purposes of contesting the elections. According to the first respondent, the nomination papers were filed on 10-2-1986 by the petitioner, himself and several others and that when the nomination papers were scrutinised, the first respondent and others raised an objection that the electoral roll of the Panchayat did not contain the name of the petitioner as a voter. It was also the case of the first respondent that one of the contestants, viz., G. Rangasami Gowder, filed a written objection; but no reply was given by the Returning Officer regarding the validity of the nomination of the petitioner, though there was also public agitation in this regard. The further case of the first respondent was that the Returning Officer informed the first respondent and others that they can meet him the next day and when they so met him on 11-2-1986, he and three others filed written objections to the effect that the name of the petitioner is not borne on the electoral rolls of the Panchayat, but the Returning Officer did not take any action, though it was accepted that the name of the petitioner was omitted in the electoral rolls. The absence of the name of the petitioner in the electoral rolls, according to the first respondent, disqualified and prevented him from filing his nomination papers and figuring as a candidate in the elections, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. On account of the improper reception of the nomination paper of the petitioner in the manner done by the Returning Officer, the election of the petitioner was materially affected, according to the first respondent. In addition, the first respondent also attributed certain corrupt practices to the petitioner in the election and prayed for setting aside the election of the petitioner and to declare him as the successful candidate in the election held for the office of the President of the Panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner, in his counter statement maintained that no objection was raised by any of the contesting candidates and no written objection was filed at any point of time. He also claimed that he is a native of the village in question having been born and brought up there and that the Village Administrative officer had also given a certificate to him. He further claimed to have voted in the election for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly but stated that the Panchayat voters' list had not been printed properly and that it was a clerical or printing mistake committed. Maintaining that there was a printing mistake in the Panchayat electoral list, that the petitioner filed his nomination papers correctly and denying the corrupt practices attributed to him, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the election on petition.

(3.) Before the Election Tribunal, on behalf of the first respondent, Exs. A.1 to A.5 were marked and the first respondent and two others were examined as P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, while, on behalf of the petitioner, Ex. B.1 was filed and R.Ws. 1 to 3 gave evidence. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Election Tribunal found that the name of the petitioner had not been included in the electoral roll of the Panchayat, that objections were raised regarding the validity of the nomination papers filed by the petitioner and, that the election of the petitioner was not valid. Consequent upon the conclusion so arrived at, the Tribunal set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the first respondent as the successful candidate, as he had secured the next highest number of votes in the election. It is the correctness of this order, that is challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision petition.