DHANALAKSHMI Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent in Election O. P. No. 78 of 1996, on the file of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is the revision petitioner. This Revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. First respondent herein filed the Election O.P. challenging the election of the revision petitioner as President of A. Melmampattu Village, Panruti Taluk, reserved for women.

(2.) Various allegations raised in the Election Petition are, that the Election Officer (2nd respondent) did not allow the election agent of the petitioner (Muthulakshmi) in spite of requests by election agents as well as the candidate. Even during counting, the agents for the petitioner were being sent out now and then. 2nd respondent and his men rejected several valid votes cast in favour of petitioner (Muthulakshmi) and accepted several votes cast in favour of 1st respondent (Dhanalakshmi) improperly, and improperly declared several votes as invalid. At the time of counting, only 38 votes were set apart as invalid which included two votes without any marking. At the time of declaration, 2nd respondent had declared 51 votes as invalid which included 15 votes without any marking. It is said that the postal votes were not opened in the presence of the agents of the election petitioner. Apart from the postal votes, 2, 363 votes were polled in all the three wards, but only 2348 votes have been accounted for by 2nd respondent and the balance of 15 votes plus 2 postal votes have not been accounted for. In paragraph 9 of the election petition, it is said that when a requisition was given for recounting, 2nd respondent refused recounting. Hence nine telegrams were given to 2nd respondent-Collector of South Arcot-Vallalar District and also to the State Election Commissioner. Subsequently, without conducting recounting, result of the election was declared on 16-10-1996. This, according to election petitioner, is unjust and illegal. It is further said in paragraph 10 that the persons who counted the votes are teachers, and one Kathirvelu who is also a teacher entered the counting hall as agent of one Mrs. Vijayalakshmi, a candidate for Panchayat Union Council, who wielded a lot of influence among the teachers, who counted the votes and influenced the counting personnel. One Thirunavukkarasu is a teacher in the school in which the said Kathirvelu is also working. Kathirvelu was present when the boxes were opened, whereas the agents of the petitioner were not even permitted inside at that time. The presence of Kathirvelu was objected by agents of petitioner. But this was not heeded to by 2nd respondent. For these reasons, the election petitioner wanted the declaration of election of 1st respondent (Dhanalakshmi) as void, and wanted herself to be declared as duly elected candidate.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 in the election petition filed detailed counters separately, denying each and every one of the allegations raised by the election petitioner.