M BOOMINATHAN Vs. RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE 144 MADURAI EAST ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Thiru M.Boominathan, belongs to Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a recognised State party in the State of Tamil Nadu. He was chosen as a candidate from the said party to contest the election for No.144, Madurai East Assembly Constituency held during May, 2006. He filed his nomination and the same was accepted. Thiru N.Nanmaran, the second respondent in the election petition, belongs to Communist Party of India (Marxist) and he was set up by the said party to contest the very same election. Apart from the above two candidates, there were other eight candidates who had contested the election. THE polling took place on 8.5.2006 and the voting was through the Electronic Voting Machines.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, even before the counting of votes polled through postal ballots, the votes polled through the Electronic Voting Machines were counted and an announcement was made as to the number of votes secured by each of the candidates. The petitioner had secured 36,308 votes as against the next candidate Thiru Nanmaran, who had secured 36,227 votes. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the counting of votes polled through the Electronic Voting Machines was completed by 9.00 a.m. Thereafter, the votes polled through the postal ballots were counted. It was objected by the election agent of the petitioner, as the votes polled through the postal ballots should have been counted even before the counting of votes polled through the Electronic Voting Machine. In spite of the objection, the Returning Officer proceeded to count those votes. Even then it was pointed out that out of 208 votes polled through the postal ballots, 58 votes did not even contain the declaration forms and number of forms did not contain authenticity. But the objections were not accepted and after the counting, it was announced that the petitioner had secured 24 votes and the returned candidate had secured 156 votes through postal ballots. After adding 156 postal ballot votes in favour of Thiru N.Nanmaran, he was declared elected. Hence the petitioner preferred the election petition praying for a direction to order the re-counting of postal ballots received to declare that the election of Thiru N.Nanmaran is null and void and consequently to declare the petitioner Thiru M.Boominathan as the returned candidate as well as to pay the cost of the petition.

(3.) BY the orders of this Court, the name of the first respondent viz., The Returning Officer for No.144 Madurai East Assembly Constituency was struck off from the election petition and the respondents 4 to 9 were called absent and set ex parte. No counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent.