G SIVA KUMAR Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ a Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to publish notification declaring the petitioner as the elected Sarpanch of Aranyam Kandriga Gram Panchayat of Narayanavaram Mandal in Chittoor District.

(2.) The election to the post of Sarpanch of the Aranyam Kandriga Gram Panchayat was conducted on 27-6-1995. The petitioner and the fourth respondent contested for the said post. After completion of the polling of votes, they were counted on the same day. It was found that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent got equal votes viz., 869 votes. On the application of the fourth respondent, the Election Commissioner, the first respondent herein, ordered recounting of votes on 21-10-1995. It appears that on recounting also both the petitioner and the fourth respondent secured 863 votes. In view of this position, the third respondent prepared and draw the lot which was found to be in the name of the petitioner. The fourth respondent, it is stated, created chaos and commotion alleging that the third respondent has not written the names of the contesting candidates on the chits; he had written the name of the petitioner on one chit and kept the other chit blank. In view of that allegation, a complaint was also said to have been lodged by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the fifth respondent herein, with the concerned police and the matter was reported to the District Collector and the District Election Authority, the second respondent herein. Apprehending that the authorities will direct repoll instead of declaring the results according to the lots drawn, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) A common counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent for himself and for the second respondent viz., the District Collector and the District Election Authority. It is stated, inter alia, that in this case two candidates got equal number of votes. The recounting was ordered and was accordingly carried out pursuant to the orders of the second respondent dated 21-10-1995. The third respondent who is the Election Officer (Stage II) Aranyam Kandriga Gram Panchayat had conducted recounting which indicated that the petitioner and the fourth respondent secured 863 votes each. As there was equality of votes among the two candidates, to find out as the who secured higher number of votes, he has drawn lots as required under the Rules. When the lot was drawn, it went in favour of the petitioner but on the insistence by the other candidate when the other chit was opened, it was stated that it was blank and hence doubting that the Election Officer had committed fraud in drawal of lots, there was commotion and chaos all around. It is added that the matter was referred to the State Election Commissioner on 23-10-1995 by a fax massage for further orders. But in view of the interim orders of this Court, no further action is taken in the matter.