R. Anandan vs S. Anandan

T. Mathivanan, J.—This memorandum of civil revision petition has been directed against the fair and decretal orders dated 31.07.2013 and made in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur. The revision petitioner is the first respondent in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011, whereas the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the respondents 2 to 4 in the Election Original Petition.

The background facts in brief are as follows:

"The revision petitioner, being the first respondent in the Election Petition, was elected as the President of Poyyundarkudikadu Panchayat Board in the election conducted on 19.10.2011. The first respondent/petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate. The revision petitioner/first respondent had got 430 votes whereas the first respondent had got 427 votes. Challenging the above result, the first respondent/petitioner had filed an Election Original Petition in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur along with an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 84 of 2011 seeking the relief of recounting of votes."

The learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur had allowed the interlocutory application on 24.07.2013 directing recounting of votes and for this purpose he had nominated the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (Senior Civil Judge). Accordingly, the recounting was held on 29.07.2013.

After the completion of the process of recounting, it was declared that the revision petitioner had obtained 430 votes, whereas the first respondent/petitioner had obtained 428 votes. Nevertheless, the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, has held that the petitioner''s nomination was accepted wrongly and that the Officers, who had conducted the election, showed a discernible bias in giving two votes to the credit of the revision petitioner/first respondent and equalled the votes and consequently declared that the election of the revision petitioner/first respondent was void and further declared that the first respondent/petitioner as an elected candidate by his order dated 31.7.2013. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013, the revision petitioner/first respondent in the Election Original Petition has approached this Court with this memorandum of civil revision.

Heard Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel representing for M/s. Ajmal Associates, who are on record for the revision petitioner/first respondent and Mr. S.R.A. Rama Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Despite the service of notice, the fourth respondent has not chosen to appear when the matter was taken up for hearing.

The first respondent/petitioner has filed the Election Original Petition in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011 mainly on the following three grounds:

"i) The revision petitioner/first respondent was not competent to contest the election to the post of President of Poyyundarkudikadu Village Panchayat on the ground that he has mis-appropriated the funds of Poyyundarkudikadu Village Panchayat to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/-, while he was serving as the President of the said Village Panchayat, during the previous period.

ii) The revision petitioner/first respondent had adopted the corrupt practice by supplying free dhoties and sarees to the voters and he has also indulged in corrupt practice with an intention to win in the election by giving Rs. 5,000/- per vote.

iii) The valid votes polled in his favour were improperly rejected."

Before we go into the merits of the case, it may be worthwhile to place it on record that the first respondent/petitioner was allotted the symbol of Hand Roller whereas the revision petitioner/first respondent was allotted with the symbol of Lock and Key and apart from this, the fourth respondent Amirthalingam was allotted with the symbol of Scissors. It may also be significant to note that the ballot papers alone were used by the Election Officer.

The total number of votes in the village is 990. Of which, the polled votes are 874 (including three postal votes). The first respondent/petitioner had got 428 votes, whereas the revision petitioner/first respondent had got 430 votes and the fourth respondent being the third contestant had secured only 5 votes. Apart from this, the first respondent/petitioner has contended that the Returning Officer, who is the second respondent herein, had omitted to count 5 votes, which were polled in favour of the first respondent/petitioner for the reasons best known to him.

The following particulars are very much essential for better adjudication of this revision petition:

"i) The Election was held on 19.10.2011

ii) Counting of votes was held on 21.10.2011

iii) Three candidates namely

1) R. Anandan (Revision Petitioner)

2) S. Anandhan (First Respondent)

3) R. Amirthalingam (Fourth Respondent) contested in the election.

iv) Total votes polled in the election are 870 votes

v) The votes secured by the candidates are as follows:

Since R. Anandhan (Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition) had secured 430 votes, he was declared elected as President of Village Panchayat."

Apart from the facts set-forth in foregoing paragraphs, it may also be relevant to note here that in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 84 of 2011, the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, on 24.07.2013 had ordered recounting of polled votes and for this purpose, he had appointed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (Senior Civil Judge). In pursuance to the above said order, re-counting was done on 29.7.2013. In the report dated 29.7.2013, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (Senior Civil Judge), Thanjavur has stated that the first respondent/petitioner had secured 427 votes whereas, the revision petitioner/first respondent had secured 430 votes and the fourth respondent being the third contestant had secured only 5 votes.

It is further stated that there were 8 doubtful votes and out of the said 8 doubtful votes, it was recommended that one vote shall be given to the credit of the first respondent/petitioner S. Anandhan. However, the learned Principal District Judge had disposed of the Election Petition in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011 on 31.07.2013 declaring that the election of Mr. R. Anandan/revision petitioner/first respondent is void and he had further declared that Mr. S. Anandhan/first respondent/petitioner as the returned candidate to the post of the President of Poyundarkudikadu Village Panchayat with the following findings:

"i)The revision petitioner/first respondent was disqualified to contest the election on the ground that a show cause notice, dated 16.9.2011, (Ex. R1) was issued by the Assistant Director (Audit) Rural Development Office, Thanjavur, calling for an explanation as to why a sum of Rs. 6,32,545/- shall not be ordered to be collected from him? In the said notice it is alleged that when he was the President of the Poyundarkudikadu Village Panchayat, he had incurred expenditure over and above the permissible limits and thereby caused a monitory loss to the Panchayat. Therefore, the said amount was said to be due to the Panchayat from him as on the date of election. Hence, under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (hereinafter it may be referred to as the "Act" in short wherever the context so require) and guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, he was suffered with disqualification on the date of nomination.

ii)In so far as the allegation with reference to the corrupt practice is concerned, the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur has rejected the allegations holding that there was no material placed before him to arrive at the conclusion that the revision petitioner/first respondent had indulged in corrupt practice to secure his election.

iii)The learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, has also observed that the first respondent/petitioner had secured 428 votes originally prior to the recounting and after recounting, two more votes were ordered to be given to the credit of the first respondent/petitioner to make it appear as if he had secured 430 votes and thus, he had declared the first respondent/petitioner as the returned candidate."

With reference to Grounds 1 and 3, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel

appearing for M/s. Ajmal Associates, who are on record for the revision petitioner/first respondent, has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 33 and 37 of the Act.

"Section 33 deals with "qualification of the candidates", whereas Section 37 deals with "disqualification of the candidates".

Section 33 contemplates that "no person shall be qualified for election as a Member or President of a Panchayat unless-

"(i) his name appears on the electoral roll of the concerned Panchayat and

(ii) he has completed his twenty-first year of age."

The above Section makes it clear that according to the qualification prescribed to stand as a member of a Panchayat or President or Chairman of a Panchayat that his name should find a place in the electoral roll of the concerned Panchayat and he should have completed twenty-one years of age.

Section 37(1) envisages:--

"That a person who has been sentenced by a criminal Court to imprisonment for any offence involving moral delinquency (such sentence not having been reversed) shall be disqualified for election as a member [while the sentence is in force] and for [six years] from the date of the expiration there of.

Sub-section (2) of Section 37 says that "a person convicted of an offence punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act XXII of 1955), shall be disqualified for election as a member for a period of [six years] from the date of such conviction."

Clause ''f'' to Sub-section (3) of Section 37 assumes to be importance and the same is extracted hereunder:

"In arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in fiduciary capacity) to a Panchayat upto and inclusive of the previous year."

In this connection, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has adverted to that no material regarding misappropriation of funds as alleged by the first respondent/petitioner is available against the revision petitioner/first respondent.

He has also argued that Ex. R1, show cause notice, dated 16.9.2011, is not resulted in misappropriation. Prior to this, he has also made reference to the provisions of Sections 258 and 259 of the Act as well as Rules 136 and 137 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995.

"Section 258(i) contemplates that "no election of a President or a Chairman or a Member shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge of the district in which the Panchayat is situated, within forty-five days from the date of the publication of the result of the election under this Act."

Section 259 deals with the grounds for declaring elections to be void. Clauses (a) and (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 259 reads as follows:

Subsection (1) says that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the District Judge is of the opinion-

"(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act, or,

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent or

(c)........and

(d)....."

Rule 136 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 speaks about the grounds for declaring election to be void:- If the election Court is of opinion-

"(1) that the existence of all or any of the grounds specified in Section 259 of the Act, has been established, or

(2)that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under this Act, then the Court may declare the election of the returned Candidate to be void."

The provisions of Rule 137 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 are also may be relevant to be extracted.

"Rule 137: Grounds on which a Candidate other than the returned Candidate may be declared to have been elected.-If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned Candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other Candidate has been duly elected and the election Court is of opinion-

(a) that in fact the, petitioner or such other Candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or

(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned Candidate by corrupt practices, the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the election Court shall after declaring the election of the returned Candidate to be void, declare the petitioner or such other Candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected."

On perusal of the orders passed by the Election Court, it is manifested that the allegation of the revision petitioner/first respondent with reference to the corrupt practice was set aside on the ground that he was disqualified to contest the election on the ground that the show cause notice dated 16.09.2011 (Ex. R.1) was issued by the Assistant Director (Audit) Rural Development, Thanjavur calling upon the revision petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 6,32,545/- alleged to have been the expenditure incurred by him when he was serving as the President of the Panchayat over and above the permissible limit, should not be ordered to be recovered. In this connection, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has indicated that the Election Court had misconstrued the show cause notice as if it had established the liability to pay the said sum. He has also maintained that the Election Court had failed to understand that a show cause notice at the best could only be an intimation to the addressee seeking his answer to the subject matter of the notice and stating the contemplated action, which is intended to be initiated.

He has also adverted to that a liability to pay a sum would become fruition only after an adjudication of the claim made in the notice and after considering the explanation given in reply to the notice, it rendered unacceptable by the authority. Thus, at the stage of notice, there could be no liability, and as such the opinion of the learned Judge, that the notice, (Ex. R1) seeking explanation of the petitioner as to why the alleged amount should not be recovered, amounts to a liability to pay, which remained unpaid at the time of election had rendered the revision petition unqualified as per Section 37 of the Act as well as under the guideline issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission did not reflect the correct understanding of law and warranted the interference by this Court. He has also maintained that it is absolutely necessary to advance substantial justice to the revision petitioner/first respondent, who has been aggrieved very much by the order of the Election Court.

Mr. A. Arumugam has also added that Ex. R1 is only a show cause notice and mere issuance of show cause notice would not create any cause of action to invoke the provisions of Section 258 of the Act, but it would qualify the revision petitioner/first respondent, who is the successful candidate in the election.

During the course of his arguments, Mr. A. Arumugam has also made reference to the Bake Ward''s Law Lexicon, wherein the phraseology ''Show Cause Notice'' has been defined in the following manner:

"A show cause notice is a statement issued by any person having authority under law to issue such notice, bringing to the knowledge of the person, to whom such notice is issued any information which the authority believes to be true, which may result in affecting any right or interest of such person, therefore requiring such person to state either in person or in writing reasons as to why the subject matter of the notice should not be treated to be true."

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, wherein His Lordship, The Honourable Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, while speaking on behalf of a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, has observed in paragraph No. 14 as under:

"A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."

Emphasizing his contentions, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel has continued that a mere show cause notice does not create any adverse obligation in any person and it is only after an explanation is offered and the same is rejected by the authority, the authority is entitled to pass an order which alone shall fix any liability to pay any sum and therefore the findings of the learned Principal District Judge is legally not sustainable.

He has also argued that it is a settled principle of election jurisprudence that the election or the success of the winning candidate in an election should not be lightly interfered with by any Court and the mistake or the non compliance of the provisions of the Act by the officers, who were in charge of the election would not render the election of the returned Candidate void. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision in P. Packiyam v. The Inspector Of Panchayat/the District Collector, Virudunagar District and others reported in (2013 (1) CWC 797). In this case, the following issue was arisen for the consideration of the learned single Judge of this Court:--

"Whether it is open to the Inspector of Panchayats to call upon the Tahsildar of the Taluk to summon the meeting of Village Panchayat to ascertain the views of the members of Panchayat with respect to the proposal for removal of President without passing a formal order or recording reasons in the file on receipt of explanation under sub-section (2) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act."

After considering the materials placed before him and after going through the catena of cases cited, the learned Judge has observed that

"the Parliament wanted the Panchayat to develop as an institution of Local Self Government. The Village Administration must be in the hands of the elected representatives of villagers. The Village Panchayat is accountable to the people of the village. Since the Panchayat Raj Institutions were the creation of constitution, the statutory provision, which takes away the powers of the democratically elected members of Panchayat, should be interpreted strictly. The Executive Authority should not be permitted to interfere in the affairs of Panchayat in a routine manner. The Collector and other functionaries under the Panchayat Act should not behave like extra constitutional Authorities, while dealing with the local body. The Panchayats are no longer the Executive Authorities under the State or the Implementing Agency of the District Administrator. The Panchayat Institutions are now given constitutional status and their position will be borne in mind by the District Collector while exercising power under Section 205 of the Act."

He has also cited another decision in The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, Rural Development And Local Administration Department, Fort St George, Chennai v. S. Ramasamy (2011 [1] CWC 814) wherein it has been held that:

"the respondent was elected as President of Jampadai Panchayat, Villupuram District during the year 2006 for a term of five years. While he was functioning as President, the District Collector, Villupuram in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat, issued notice on 4th October, 2007 invoking Section 205(i)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, alleging the following misconduct:

(i) That you have incurred expenses without Form 19 and sub-vouchers;

(ii) Administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector for Drought Relief Works in this office ROC. No. A8/2197/2007, dated 06.06.2007 and it was also ordered that the expenditure for work should be met from Panchayat funds. Besides not starting the work, sufficient funds also were not kept in the Panchayat funds and thus misappropriated Panchayat funds;

(iii) Expenditure were incurred in excess of the ceiling limit fixed by the Government for the maintenance of hand pump, water tank and street light and also failed to obtain specific sanction of the Panchayat for the excess expenditure;

(iv)Entries were not made in the relevant records for the maintenance and procurement of spares for water supply and street light."

For the above irregularities committed, the respondent was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the Office of President. While dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that:

"Section 205 of the Act is a very drastic provision intended to be exercised in very exceptional circumstances."

Apart from this, the Division Bench of this Court has also held that:

"The Panchayats were constituted by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992. Parts IX and X were inserted with a definite purpose. Parliament in its wisdom wanted to confer power to the people. The Sates on their part implemented the provisions contained under Parts IX and X either by amending the existing laws or by making new legislations. Therefore any provision which seeks to take away the administration from the hands of the elected representatives should be interpreted in a strict manner."

The learned counsel has relied on yet another decision in D. Bagyalakshmi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, The Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, Vellore District Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore-9 and The Tahsildar, Gudiyatham, Vellore District wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court has observed that:

"Analysing the legal position that after initiation of the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act for charges of misappropriation of funds, when the petitioner has explained that it is a regular way of incurring expenditure over and above the permissible limits and the same would not attract the provisions of the sub-section (1) of Section 205 to initiate action for removal proceedings and that too on the verge of tenure of her office, before taking any penal action against the elected person i.e., the petitioner, the authorities, who are vested with such power; must exercise caution and proceed with the removal proceedings."

With regard to the order of recounting of votes, Mr. A. Arumugam has placed reliance upon the decision in Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and Others, .

In this case, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by His Lordship The Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Chief Justice of India (as he then was) has observed as follows:

"The result of the analysis of the above cases would show that this Court has consistently taken the view that re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks re-count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re-count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But, if it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties."

Mr. A. Arumugam has also made reference to A. Shandha Vs. Kavitha and Others, .

In an another decision in Prakash Khandre Vs. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre and Others, , a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has observed as under:

"In an election where elected candidate is declared to be disqualified to contest election and there are more than two candidates contesting election, there is no specific provision under the Act under which the person who has secured the next highest number of votes could be declared as elected. The Act is silent on this point. Further, it cannot be presumed that the votes secured by the disqualified elected candidates would have been wasted or would have been secured by the next candidate who has secured more votes. If disqualified candidate was not permitted to contest the election then how the voters would have voted in favour of the candidate who has secured more votes than other remaining candidates would be a question in the realm of speculation and unpredictability. In such a situation, declaring the election of the returned candidate on the ground of his initial disqualification to contest the election by itself would not entitle the election petitioner or any other candidate to be declared elected. The rule of election law prevailing in the United Kingdom that the votes cast in favour of a person who is found disqualified for election may be regarded as ''thrown away'' only if the voters had notice before the poll the disqualification of the candidate, has no application in our country and has only merit of antiquity. The question of sending such notice to all voters is alien to the Act and the Rules."

By way of conclusion, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel has argued that the order of re-counting passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur as well as the report submitted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority (Senior Civil Judge) are absolutely wrong and no necessity arose for re-counting of polled votes and therefore, re-counting ought not to have been ordered as envisaged in the decisions rendered in Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and Others, , A. Shandha Vs. Kavitha and Others, and Prakash Khandre v. Dr. vijaya Kumar Khandre and others with Prakash Khandre Vs. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre and Others, .

33.0n the other hand, Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has contended that as argued by Mr. A. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/first respondent, Ex. R.1 is not merely a show cause notice, but it is a statutory notice and therefore, the reply if any, might not be taken into consideration.

He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 37(3)(f) and 259(1)(a) of the Act. Both the provisions have been elaborately discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, the risk of repetition of the above provisions does not require here.

Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran has also drawn the attention of this Court to the report submitted by the Secretary, District Legal services Authority (Senior Civil Judge) and argued that it has been stated by the Secretary, District Legal services Authority (Senior Civil Judge) in whose presence, the re-counting was conducted, the Election Officer had made an endorsement as the procedures were violated in this case and apart from this, he has also pointed out that in the last page of the report it has been stated that on re-counting of votes, there was no objection raised by the advocates on both sides. However, as per the direction of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, 5 votes were taken under the category of doubtful votes and taken up for scrutiny and also for careful consideration.

In this connection, he would further submit that the report submitted by the Secretary, District Legal services Authority (Senior Civil Judge) could not be found fault with and the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur rejecting the allegation of the revision petitioner/first respondent also could not be interfered with as it did not require the interference of this Court.

While advancing his arguments, with regard to the order of the Election Court, Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has also made reference to paragraph Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of the impugned order. Besides this, he has also made reference to Rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1995, which contemplates the destruction or loss of ballot papers at the time of counting.

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in V. Sahadevan v. C. Ayyakalai and nine others reported in 2008 [5] CTC 1. This Court has also gone through the above cited decision and found that this decision is not made applicable to the instant case on hand, as this case is mainly revolving around the center point of Ex. R1 show cause notice and only on the basis of Ex. R1, the revision petitioner/first respondent was declared as disqualified. Therefore, the above cited decision cannot be made applicable to the instant case on hand.

On the other hand, Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3, has argued that the revision petitioner/first respondent was permitted to contest in the election based on the fact that he was not convicted, but he was only charged for the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. On that ground, he had been issued with a show cause notice and the mere issuance of show cause notice could not be presumed that he was made liable to pay the above said amount to the Government and equally could not be presumed that he was convicted or penalised by the issuance of the show cause notice.

He has also continued that the entire election process was carried out as per law and the guidance of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and that the local body election symbols namely, Lock and Key, Scissors and Hand Roller were allotted to the ballot papers for the village Panchayat election and the same were printed in the order of Lock and Key as first symbol, Scissors as second symbol and Hand Roller as third symbol and no name was printed in the ballot papers.

He has further contended that the entire election process was carefully observed by the Election Officers and the observers, who were appointed according to the guidance of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission. He has also indicated that since re-counting of the polled votes was held in proper manner and according to the guidance of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission with high security, it could not be simply termed that there were irregularities in the election process and that the nomination of the revision petitioner/first respondent ought to have been rejected on the ground of issuance of show cause notice.

This Court has carefully perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. As already pointed out, the entire case is only revolving around the center point of Ex. R1, the show cause notice. With regard to ''Show Cause Notice'', it may be essential to reiterate the definition given in Bake Ward''s Law Lexicon:

"A show cause notice is a statement issued by any person having authority under law to issue such notice, bringing to the knowledge of the person, to whom such notice is issued any information which the authority believes to be true, which may result in affecting any right or interest of such person, therefore requiring such person to state either in person or in writing reasons as to why the subject matter of the notice should not be treated to be true."

Based on the above context, this Court finds that the mere show cause notice does not create any adverse obligation in any person much less on the revision petitioner/first respondent. The revision petitioner/first respondent has not been convicted based on the show cause notice. Therefore, Ex. R1 cannot form basis to disqualify the revision petitioner/first respondent as contemplated under Section 37(3)(f) of the Act.

The observations of The Honourable Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, in the decision in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, have to be re-written saying that "a mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established.... A mere show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, the said party can be said to have any grievance.

Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur seems to be perverse and non application of mind on the appropriate provisions of law and the misconception of facts and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, this memorandum of civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned fair and decretal order, dated 31.07.2013, and made in E.L.O.P. No. 126 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.