AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Tamilvanan, J.—Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the petitioner as elected Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti
Panchayat Union and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent in accordance with law.
Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of
writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Sedapatti Panchayat
Union, the fourth respondent in the said writ petition and quash the same.
Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate-General
appearing for R1 to R3. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011,
and the fourth respondent was also called absent.
In both the writ petitions, the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 are the same authorities, however, the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No.
14029 of 2011 is the rival candidate, Mrs. Santhakumari and the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 is the Commissioner,
Sedapatti Panchayat Union. In the common order, for the sake of convenience, considering the earlier writ petition, the term writ petitioner and the
fourth respondent respectively shall refer the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011, unless the same is
specifically stated.
It is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 had notified the election for the post of Vice-Chairman, Sedapatti Panchayat Union being
conducted on 30.11.2011. There were 18 councilors to select the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union. Out of the said councilors, the
petitioner, Mr. Srinivasan was elected for ward No. 17 and the fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari was elected for ward No. 8 of Sedapatti
Panchayat Union. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and the fourth respondent have contested for the post of Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti
Panchayat Union and the election was conducted by the authorities, who are respondents 1 to 3 on 30.11.2011 at 2.00 p.m. The third
respondent, Returning Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Madurai District was the Election Officer for the
election of Vice-Chairman of the panchayat union, Sedapatti.
The petitioner herein has stated in the accompanying affidavit that after the poling of votes in the election at Sedapatti Panchayat Union office,
the third respondent conducted counting of votes there itself, in the presence of all councilors with the assistance of the concerned officers, deputed
for the purpose. According to the petitioner, during the counting, it was found that the petitioner secured 10 votes and the fourth respondent
secured only 7 votes and one vote was declared invalid. However, just before declaring the petitioner as elected candidate for Vice-Chairman,
knowing the same, the fourth respondent suddenly made a quarrel and resorted to booth capturing and torn the ballot papers in the presence of the
other councilors and officers, who conducted the election. The petitioner has further stated in the accompanying affidavit that the entire polling and
counting conducted by the third respondent was videographed by the officers of the respondents 1 to 3. The third respondent gave a criminal
complaint before Sedapatti Police Station against the fourth respondent aggrieved by her illegal act and a case was registered in Cr. No. 213/2011
on the file of the-Sedapatti police station, against the fourth respondent for the offence committed by her by booth capturing and for torn ballot
papers.
Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed M.P. (MD). No. 2 of 2012 in the main writ petition and submitted that
the respondents 1 to 3 have properly video-graphed the entire election process for the post of Vice-Chairman and if it was send for, the same
would clearly show that the petitioner has got 10 votes out of 18 votes and the fourth respondent got only 7 votes and one vote was declared
invalid and that was announced by the third respondent, while counting each vote and the act of the fourth respondent voluntarily took out the
ballot papers and torn the same only, with the view to prevent the Election Officer from declaring the result in favour of the petitioner herein.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a clear proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner has got sufficient votes to be
declared him as winner in the election for the Vice-Chairman of the Sedapatti Panchayat Union and the fourth respondent had indulged in the said
illegal activities, hence, she should be punished in accordance with law. However, the fourth respondent was not even arrested for her illegal act of
booth capturing and torn the ballot papers, in the presence of officers and all other councilors, since she had the support of the ruling party and
only a criminal case was registered against her for booth capturing and for torn the ballot papers, on the complaint given by the third respondent.
According to Mr. Veera Kathiravan, though the video-graph of the respondents 1 to 3 would clearly establish that the petitioner has got
sufficient votes in the election to declare him as Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union, he was not declared so by the respondents 1 to 3. In the
aforesaid circumstances, there was no other remedy available to the petitioner, except to file this writ petition, seeking an order in the nature of writ
of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the petitioner as elected Vice-Chairman of the Sedepatti Panchayat Union.
The second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, Madurai District filed counter for respondents 1 to 3, wherein he has
stated that the third respondent herein conducted the election for the post of Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat on 30.11.2011, however, the
second respondent has not admitted the averments made by the petitioner that he secured 10 votes and the fourth respondent herein got only 7
votes out of 18 votes. The second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, Madurai has admitted the fact that the third
respondent, Returning Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Sedapatti, Panchayat Union, Madurai District, by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.
500/2011/Aa.2, dated 30.11.2011 sent intimation to the second respondent, stating that the fourth respondent herein had torn ballot papers at the
time of counting of votes for the post of Vice-Chairman of the Sedapatti Panchayat Union and the said incident was video-graphed by the third
respondent. He has further stated that after the said incident, there was no quorum ,hence, the same was recorded in the minutes book on
30.11.2011 and the election for the post of Vice-Chairman of the Sedapatti Panchayat Union was adjourned.
The second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, has admitted the fact that the third respondent herein Returning
Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Sedapatti Panchayat Union had given complaint to the Inspector of Sedapatti Police Station against the
fourth respondent that she had involved in booth capturing and torn ballot papers. Hence, case in Crime No. 213 of 2011 on the file of the
Sedapatti police station was registered against the fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari. The second respondent has further stated that FIR was
registered by the said police on the same date, 30.11.2011, on the complaint given by the third respondent. On receiving the letter from the third
respondent on 30.11.2011, the second respondent sent his letter in Na.Ka. No. 69214/201I/Oo.Va.18, dated 30.11.2011 to the first respondent
stating the entire incident, that had taken place on 30.11.2011 during the counting process. The second respondent has specifically stated in the
counter that the entire election process had been video-graphed. According to the second respondent, since the counting of votes was not
completed, no one was declared as Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union by the respondents 1 to 3.
The writ petitioner filed M.P. (MD). No. 2 of 2012, seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the original Compact Disc, that
was video-graphed on 30.11.2011 during the counting process of the election for the Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat Union, with the CD
player before this Court. Having considered the facts and circumstances and also the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court
directed the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the original Compact Disc and CD, that was video-graphed on 30.11.2011, during the counting
process of election for Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat Union with CD. player. In fact, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional
Advocate-General fairly submitted to this Court that the counting of votes was properly video-graphed by the officers of the respondents 1 to 3, in
order to maintain transparency in the election process and that the respondents 1 to 3 are also ready to produce the same in a sealed cover to be
played in this Court.
As per order, dated 06.12.2012 passed in M.P (MD). No. 2 of 2012 in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011, this Court directed the
respondents 1 to 3 to produce the Compact Disc on 12.12.2012 at 4 p.m. along with the CD player and other equipments. Accordingly, the same
were produced by the respondents 1 to 3, through Additional Advocate-General. The CD relating to the videograph of the polling and counting of
votes on 30.11.2011 for Vice-Chairman election of Sedapatti Panchayat Union was properly produced in a sealed cover by the respondents 1 to
3 and the same was opened in the presence of both the counsel for the petitioner and Additional Advocate-General appearing for respondents 1 to
3 and other Advocates are also present in the open Court. Accordingly, the CD was played three times to access the fact properly, that was
covered under the CD. It is seen that the incident was video-graphed properly by the Returning Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, the third
respondent herein with the help of technical experts.
While playing the CD and viewing the video-graphed scenario of the incident, that occurred on 30.11.2011 during counting process of the
election, Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner identified a middle aged women, who was capturing the ballot papers
from the custody of the Election Officer and torn the same, as Mrs. Santhakumari, the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011.
Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate-General also confirmed that the said middle aged women is the fourth respondent, Mrs.
Santhakumari. With regard to the identification of the women, who snatched the ballot papers just before the end of the election process is
undoubtedly identified as Mrs. Santhakumari, who was also a candidate in the election. Apart from both the officers, who were present in the open
court also confirmed the identity of the women, Mrs. Santhakumari, the fourth respondent in the writ petition.
It is not in dispute that all the 18 councilors have voted in the election for Vice-Chairman of the Sedapatti Panchayat Union. The visual scenario
of the CD played shows that 18 councilors polled their votes one after another by maintaining proper decorum. The Court could see that the ballot
papers were properly folded by each voter (councilor) and inserted in the box at the place meant for voting. Subsequently, the votes are being
counted and being has announced by the counting officer by showing each ballot paper to all the persons present there. It is seen that first tray was
allotted to the fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari and the second tray was allotted to the petitioner, Mr. Srinivasan, for placing the counted
votes. It is further seen from the video clipping that the election officer has announced properly one by one of the votes declared in favour of the
said two candidates, namely the fourth respondent and the petitioner respectively.
It is undoubtedly clear that the petitioner, who was allotted second tray got 9 votes and the petitioner, who was allotted first tray got only 7 votes
and the counting officer declared one vote as invalid. While the counting officer taking the last ballot paper, 18th ballot paper, to announce the
vote, at that stage, the fourth respondent, who is identified by Mr. Veera Kathirvan and also Mr. K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate-General,
suddenly taking out the ballot papers from the custody of the counting officer, torn and throwing the same and also threw a tray down from its
place. The Officers are standing with shock without doing anything and that is the video-graphed scenario taken by the authorities, during the
counting process on 30.11.2011.
This occurrence shows the genuineness and correctness of the complaint given by the third respondent before the Sedapatti police against Mrs.
Santhakumari, the fourth respondent. It is crystal clear that the fourth respondent torn the ballot papers, while counting process was almost
completed by the counting officer, just before announcing the last vote.
The copy of the FIR relating to the case in Cr. No. 213 of 2011 registered by Sedapatti police station under Sections 171(E), 188 IPC, 123 r/w
133 of ROP Act, 1951 is also produced in the form of typed set. As per the complaint given by the third respondent before the police and the FIR
registered by the police, it is categorically stated that the fourth respondent, Mrs. M. Santhakumari suddenly torn the ballot papers illegally and her
activities are offence of booth capturing and torn of ballots papers, punishable under law.
The second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector in his counter has specifically stated that after receiving the report
from the third respondent, he sent a letter to the first respondent, State Election Commissioner in Na.Ka. No. 69214/2011/Oo.Va.18, dated
30.11.2011 about the incidence that had happened on 30.11.2011 during the counting process. He has also stated that the incident was properly
video-graphed. The complaint given by the third respondent before the police and the report sent by him to the second respondent and the written
communication sent by the second respondent to the first respondent and the videograph of the incident, that was viewed in the open court would
clearly establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari had illegally indulged in booth capturing and torn the
ballot papers, after knowing that the rival candidate, who is the petitioner herein has got more votes than the fourth respondent, which is sufficient
to declare the petitioner herein as Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union.
It is not in dispute that total councilors eligible to vote for the Sedapatti Panchayat Union for Vice-Chairman election was 18. Out of 18, one
vote was declared invalid and the balance was 17 votes and it is clearly seen from the videograph that the petitioner of the writ petition got 9 votes
and the fourth respondent got only 7 votes, during the process of counting by the Election Officer just before counting the last vote. It is clearly
seen from the videograph that when the last vote (18th vote) had to be declared, the fourth respondent illegally took out the ballot papers from the
custody of the counting officer and torn the same, whereby committed offence of booth capturing and torn of ballot papers. It is clear from the
visual scenario of the video that out of 18 votes, one vote was declared invalid and in the balance, the petitioner got 9 votes that was declared then
and there by the counting officer during the electoral process and similarly, the fourth respondent got only 7 votes and before the last vote (18th
vote), the fourth respondent indulged in booth capturing and torn the votes.
Mr. Veera Kathiravan, pointed out that the last vote was also in favour of the petitioner herein, as the fourth respondent says in the video,
how could it be possible for the petitioner to secure 10 votes against the ruling party candidate"". However, it is clear that the counting officer could
not announce as to whom the last vote was polled, due to the illegal act of the rival candidate, the fourth respondent. As contended by the learned
counsel for petitioner, even if the last vote is counted in favour of the fourth respondent for the sake of argument, it could be decided that the
petitioner could have been declared as the candidate elected for the Vice-Chairman, since his nine votes were declared one by one by the counting
officer, during the counting process and the fourth respondent got only 7 votes. It is only after knowing the fact that the petitioner as winning
candidate in the election, the fourth respondent suddenly adopted the illegal method of booth capturing and torn the ballot papers, in order to
prevent the counting officer from declaring the petitioner as Vice-Chairman of the said Panchayat Union.
It cannot be disputed that free and fair election process is the basis for the survival of democracy and hence, the illegal activities such as booth
capturing should be condoned, as the same is against Democracy and any person indulging in such activities shall be punished seriously according
to law.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 62(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules,
1995, which reads as follows :
Destruction or loss of ballot papers at the time of counting (1) If at any time before the counting of votes is completed, ballot papers used at
polling station are unlawfully taken out to the custody of the Returning Officer or accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost or damaged or
tampered with to such an extent that the result of the poll of that polling station cannot be ascertained, the Returning Officer shall forthwith report
the matter to the District Election Officer, State Election Officer and the State Election Commission.
In the instant case, the unruly behaviour and illegal act of booth capturing and torn the ballot papers by the fourth respondent, Mrs.
Santhakumari, resulted in filing criminal complaint by the third respondent, Returning Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector himself. Based on the
complaint given, a case in Cr. No. 213 of 2011 is admittedly registered by the police. Even in the FIR registered, based on the complaint, booth
capturing and torn of ballot papers by the fourth respondent has been specifically stated, which is substantiated by the videograph, that was played
in the open court. Pursuant to the report by the third respondent, second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, Madurai
has sent a report immediately to the first respondent, State Election Commissioner.
While discharging the duty as Election Officer, Election Commissioner or police authority dealing with Election process, they should function
independently and decide everything based on the available facts.
In the instant case, it is strange that the concerned police officers have not even arrested the fourth respondent, who had deliberately indulged
in booth capturing and destroying the ballot papers in the presence of responsible election officers and other councilors, though the factum has
been categorically established by the complaint given by the third respondent and the subsequent report sent by the second respondent to the first
respondent and also the videograph taken by the respondents 1 to 3 during counting process.
This Court also find it reasonable to record its view that to strengthen democracy that all the political parties should act against booth capturing
and destroying ballot papers, irrespective of the political party of the person concerned, since the same is against the free and fair election process
in the democratic set up and no way should encourage illegality against the democratic process of conducting free and fair election.
It is seen that the Returning Officer, the third respondent and the second respondent, District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, Madurai
have acted properly as independent Election Officers. However, in spite of the complaint given by the third respondent, who is the Returning
Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, concerned police authority has failed to take immediate action to arrest the present, so as to create
awareness in the minds of the people and the candidates not to indulge in any illegal acts against the democratic process.
The videograph would clearly show that the fourth respondent, while the counting officer was about to declare the last vote suddenly, in an
unruly manner took out the ballot papers, torn the same and also threw a tray and the Election Officer and others could not do anything. However,
the third respondent gave the complaint against the fourth respondent, based on which a criminal case was registered. Merely registering a criminal
case would not be sufficient for the concerned police officers for properly discharging their duty in election process. Though the Returning officer,
the third respondent and the District Electoral Officer-cum-District Collector, the second respondent have acted in a responsible diligent manner, I
could see inaction from the police in this regard, which cannot be appreciated in the Democratic set up.
It is the duty of the State Election Commissioner to prevent this type of illegal activities, in order to ensure free and fair elections being
conducted for the survival of Democracy at the gross root level. In this regard, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has decided number of rulings.
A Division Bench of this Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Election Commissioner and Others, has held as
follows:
...Democracy contemplates that Elections should be free and fair, so that voters may be in a position to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Free and fair Elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions. The Elections should not only be fairly and properly held, but should also
seem to be so held to inspire confidence in the minds of the Electors that everything was above board. To ensure free and fair Elections, the
Constitution vests comprehensive responsibility in the Election Commission. The Election Commission, as part of fairness in Elections, has an
obligation to see that no wrong doer candidate benefits by his own wrong....
In the aforesaid decision, it has been further held as follows :
253...(2) Any decision taken by the Election Commission is subject to the judicial review by the High Court, of course within the known
parameters of such jurisdiction. However, the High Court is required to be very circumspect in such matters and interfere only in rarest of rare
cases. Where the High Court comes to the conclusion that free and fair election has not been held and there is a mockery of democracy and the
Election Commission has failed in its duty to protect democracy by ensuring free and fair election, the High Court can in order to protect the
concept of democracy, interfere in such matters, even after the election process is over, not withstanding the fact that alternative remedy may be
available and not withstanding the fact that some disputed questions are required to be decided. This again would obviously depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and such jurisdiction is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases where the monstrosity of the situation so compels.
In Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, the philosophy and the concept of election
in a democracy was highlighted in paragraph-23 of the judgment, as quoted hereunder:
Democracy is government by the people. It is continual participative operation, not a cataclysmic, periodic exercise. The little man, in his
multitude, marking his vote at the poll does a social audit of his Parliament plus political choice of his proxy. Although the full flower of participative
Government rarely blossoms, the minimum credential of popular government is appeal to the people after every term for a renewal of confidence.
So we have adult franchise and general elections as constitutional compulsions. The right of election is the very essence of the constitution'' (Junius).
It needs little argument to hold that the heart of the Parliamentary system is free and fair election periodically held, based on adult franchise,
although social and economic democracy may demand much more.
Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Shri Kihota Hollohon Vs. Mr. Zachilhu and others, wherein the Court held :
Democracy is a part of the basis structure of our Constitution; and rule of law and free and fair elections are basic features of democracy.
One of the postulates of free and fair elections is provision for resolution of election disputes as also adjudication of disputes relating to subsequent
disqualifications by an independent authority.
In Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali Vs. B.D. Jatti and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
...Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done but must also
seem to be done; similarly elections should not only be fairly and properly held but should also seem to be so conducted as to inspire confidence in
the minds of the electors that everything has been above board and has been done to ensure free elections. It will be a sad day in the history of our
country when the police and the Government officers create even an impression that they are interfering for the benefit of one or the other
candidate....
It cannot be disputed that by adopting illegal methods, the fourth respondent cannot be entitled to take away the legitimate right accrued to the
petitioner under the Election process.
It is a well settled proposition of law that when there is direct and unimpeachable evidence available and the relief sought for relating to
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable, which is applicable to this case on hand.
In Gujarat University Vs. N.U. Rajguru and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held thus :
It is well settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum
for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum the aggrieved forum provided
by the statute. While considering an election dispute, it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a
fundamental nor a common law right, instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the
jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election
dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cased where
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, may exist to justify bypassing the alternative remedies....
The act done by the fourth respondent by booth capturing and destroying the ballot papers of the Panchayat Union is against the people of the
entire Sedapatti Panchayat Union and the elected councilors, apart from disrespecting the responsible Election Officers, who conducted the
election and also the rule of law. It has been made clear that without any reasonable doubt the petitioner has got 9 votes declared and the fourth
respondent has got only 7 votes and one vote was declared invalid. Before declaring the last vote (18th vote), the fourth respondent knowing the
fact that she cannot win in the election had indulged in the illegal activity of booth capturing and torn the ballot papers in the presence of Election
Officers and others. As discussed earlier, even if the last vote, which was in the hands of the counting officer to be declared in favour of the fourth
respondent, for the sake of arguments, considering the fact that the petitioner has already got 9 votes, even before declaring the last vote, he ought
to have been declared as elected candidate for the Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat Union. However, in view of the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995, the third respondent could not declare the result of the election, on account of the illegal happening.
In the instant case, on the clear facts and circumstances established, there is no need for the petitioner for filing separate Election Petition. It has
been proved, as per the unassailable evidence available evidence, including the videograph, that the petitioner has got sufficient votes to declare
him as the elected candidate for Vice-Chairman, Sedapatti Panchayat Union.
In the aforesaid circumstances, as there is direct violation of Fundamental Right of the petitioner, under Article 14 of the Constitution, the
petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be declared elected for Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat
Union, as he has established that he has got sufficient number of votes to declare him as elected candidate, apart from booth capturing and torn of
ballot papers by the rival candidate, the fourth respondent herein. It is made clear that this order is nothing to do with the criminal case pending
against the fourth respondent, as the same has to be decided independently on merits.
In view of the illegal act done by the fourth respondent, Election Commissioner, the first respondent had taken steps for conducting fresh
election and as there was no quorum for conducting election, another date was also announced. Challenging the same, hence, the petitioner has
filed the writ petition in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012. This Court, by order, dated 14.09.2012 made in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 and
M.P. (MD). No. 1 of 2012 passed the order as follows :
Election may go on and the result shall not be declared until further orders of this Court.
In view of the booth capturing and torn of the ballot papers by the fourth respondent, which caused loss to the Election Commission, apart
from affecting the right of the petitioner, who secured more votes than the fourth respondent, which is also sufficient for declaring the petitioner as
Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union, I find it just and reasonable, to meet the ends of justice to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- against the fourth
respondent and the same shall be paid by the fourth respondent towards the State Election Commissioner, the first respondent herein. In the result,
the writ petition in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011 is allowed and the first respondent, State Election Commissioner, Chennai is directed to pass
suitable orders to declare the petitioner as elected Vice-Chairman of Sedepatti Panchayat Union, as per procedure known to law, within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate action against the
fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari, in accordance with law. The fourth respondent, Mrs. Santhakumari is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as cost to the first respondent, the State Election Commissioner, Chennai. It is also made clear that the
criminal case pending against the fourth respondent is nothing to do with this order, since the same has to be disposed of, as per law by the
competent Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The Registry is directed to keep the sealed cover containing the
video-graphed CD in safe custody, as it is a vital peace of evidence in this case.
In view of the order passed in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011, W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 is ordered to be closed and it is declared that
the subsequently conducted election became nullity. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs
in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012.