A SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. R `CHINNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the election petition under Sections 80 to 84, 100 (1)(d)(iii) and (iv) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules 54 and 54(A) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 seeking a declaration that the election of the first respondent herein/returned candidate from No.104 Singanallur Assembly Constituency in the election held on 8.5.2006 is void and to order re-scrutiny of the voting results recorded in 315 Electronic Voting Machines used for counting in the said election in the above Constituency and to order re-polling of 1099 postal ballot papers and declare the result of the same and to declare the petitioner as duly elected as a Member of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly from the above Constituency in the said election.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Election Petitioner, he contested as a candidate belonging to the Communist Part of India (Marxist) from 104, Singanallur (Coimbatore) Assembly Constituency in the Election held on 8.5.2006 and the Returned candidate contested as a candidate belonging to the AIADMK Party and the Respondents 2 to 5 also contested the Election as candidates.

(3.) IN paragraph No.9, the election petitioner has stated that everything was done in a hurry on 11.5.2006 from 8 am onwards and the election observer was in a hurry to leave Coimbatore by Jet Airways scheduled to depart at 12.55 pm and he wanted everything to be over within a short time and the chief election agent of the petitioner wanted to know as to what happened to the postal ballot papers and there was no answer. IN paragraph No.10, it is stated that without disclosing as to how many postal ballot papers have been received, the counting process was going on in a hurry and there has been non-compliance of Rule 54A (1) to (7) of the Conduct of Elections Rules and this has materially affected the results of the election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned.