K MANJULA Vs. VASANTHA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent in Election (Original) Petition No. 146 of 1996, on the file of Election Tribunal (District Judge), Chengalpattu, is the revision petitioner. First respondent herein filed the above petition to declare the election of the petitioner herein as Member of Ward No. 16 of Kadambathur Panchayat Union, Chengai M.G.R. District as void, illegal and inoperative, and also to declare the first respondent herein as the successful candidate in the Membership of Ward No. 16, and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) I do not want to go into the facts of the case, since the matter now under consideration is with respect to I.A. No. 199 of 1997, which was filed by the present petitioner to reject the election petition as not maintainable. In the affidavit filed in support of that I.A., she contended that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 deals with election petitions. Under Rule 123, the election petition should be presented within 15 days from the date of publication of the result. Under Rule 123(2) every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the election petition with three more additional copies, and the same to be attested either by the election petitioner or his counsel. It is also submitted that the annexures should be enclosed with each copy of the petition at time of presenting the election petition. Rule 123(2) is thus mandatory. It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner has not enclosed the annexures to the petition with each copy of the petition, and as such, the election petition presented by the election petitioner is not in compliance with Rule 123. The petitioner in that LA. has further stated that she was not served with copy of the petition through court, and on the representation of her counsel to court, a copy of the petition without enclosure was served on him in public court on 8.1.1996. It is said that she has also filed a petition for striking out the pleadings of the election petitioner wherein she has alleged that the copies of enclosures have not been filed in compliance of Rule 123. According to her, in an attempt to cure the material defect of improper presentation of the election petition, her (election petitioner's) counsel has attempted to furnish copies of enclosures on 5.3.1997, which has been refused by the counsel on the ground that there was no direction by the election court. For the reasons stated above, she prayed for rejection of the election petition.

(3.) A detailed counter was filed by first respondent wherein she said that required number of copies as described in the petition were presented and the same were also duly attested as required under law. It is further said that the other statutory requirements were also duly fulfilled. Only after a careful scrutiny of the election petition papers, the same was numbered and notice was ordered. It is said that after receiving notice, petitioner herein entered appearance through counsel and sought time for filing counter, and the matter was adjourned at their request. Learned counsel for petitioner requested her counsel to handover a copy of the petition, and instantly her counsel to handed over a copy from the bundle wherein it was stated as office copy. When an allegation was made that annexures were not handed over, respondent's counsel again offered copies of annexures, but they were refused to be accepted. It is also contended that the documents filed along with the election petition are evidentiary in nature and they do not form the integral part of the petition. It is said that there is no ground to reject the election petition at this stage because it is ripe for evidence.