R. Pandiammal vs S. Muthulakshmi

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—Pandiammal, namely the first respondent in the Election O.P. No. 1/2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram (Election Tribunal) is the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013. Muthulakshmi, the petitioner in the Election OP No. 1/2011 is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 852/2013. Pandiammal figures as respondent No. 1 in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 852/2013 filed by Muthulakshmi and Muthulakshmi figures as respondent No. 1 in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013 filed by Pandiammal. One more contestant by name Mariammal and the Election Officer/Block Development Officer, Kamuthi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District figure as respondents 2 and 3 in both the revision petitions. Pandiammal, Muthulakshmi and Mariammal were the contestants in the local body election that was conducted on 19.10.2011 for the election of the President of Udayanathapuram Panchayat, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram district. Pandiammal was allotted the symbol of scissors, Muthulakshmi was allotted the symbol of hand roller and Mariammal was allotted the symbol of ''lock and key''. Polling was held at five booths and a total number of 2227 votes were polled. Counting of the votes was done on 21.10.2011 and at the end of the counting Pandimmal was declared to have won the election by defeating her nearest rival candidate Muthulakshmi by a margin of "5" votes. As per the results declared, the votes polled in favour of all the three candidates as per the declared results are as follows:

Pandiammal: 1028

Muthulakshmi: 1023

Mariammal: 121

Contending that as many as 45 votes were rejected as invalid and such rejected votes also contained the ballot papers polled in favour of Muthulakshmi and that 28 votes secured by Muthulakshmi had been improperly rejected as invalid by the Counting Officer, Muthulakshmi presented an application for re-counting. Rejecting the said application for re-counting, the Returning Officer declared the results of the election and announced Pandiammal to have won the election by a margin of five votes.

Muthulakshmi filed Election O.P. No. 1/2011 on the file of the Election Tribunal-learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, challenging the election of Pandiammal as President of Udayanathapuram Panchayat. In the said Election Original Petition, Muthulakshmi filed an interlocutory application as I.A. No. 100/2011 praying for an order directing production of the ballot boxes in the court and for recounting of the votes by appointing a Commissioner for the said purpose. The learned Principal District Judge (Election Tribunal), after hearing, by order dated 21.08.2012, allowed the application and issued a direction for re-counting as prayed for in the interlocutory application and appointed Thiru. V. Jeevanandam, advocate as Commissioner for the purpose of recounting. The said order of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram was challenged before this court in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 1825/2012. A learned single judge of this court, after hearing, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) dated 21.08.2012 made in I.A. No. 100/2011 in E.L.O.P. No. 1/2011 and directed the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) to dispose of the Election O.P. No. 1/2011 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram took up the enquiry.

In the enquiry, Muthulakshmi was examined as PW1 and one S. Ganapathy was examined as PW2. As many as nine documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P9 on her side. On the side of Pandiammal, One Ramalingam figured as RW1. Thiru. T.R. Sathiyamoorthy, the Block Development Officer, Kamuthi Panchayat union figured as RW2. As many as five documents were marked as Exs. R1 to R5. One A. Kandasamy, Assistant Planning Officer, District Planning Agency, Pudukottai District was examined as Court Witness No. 1 and one document was marked through him as Ex. X1.5. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) considered the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced in the case in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides and upon such consideration, allowed the Election Original Petition in part, set aside the election of Pandiammal as President of Udayanathapuram Panchayat and granted a declaration to that effect. The other reliefs sought for in the Election Original Petition i.e. for declaring Muthulakshmi to have won the election was rejected.

The above said order of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram (Election Tribunal) dated 17.04.2013 made in Election O.P. No. 1/2011 is challenged by Pandiammal in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013 challenging the first part of the order declaring her election as President of Udayanathapuram Panchayat to be invalid. As against the disallowed part of her prayer, viz., the prayer for declaring her to have won the election to the post of the above said Panchayat, Muthulakshmi has filed C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 852/2013.

The arguments advanced by Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. K. Kumaravel, counsel on record for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013, by Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. S. Karunakar, learned counsel oil record for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 852/2013, by Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. R. Vinayagamoorthi, learned counsel on record for the 2nd respondent in both the civil revision petitions and by Mr. G. Muthukannan, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the third respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions were heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.

Learned counsel for the returned candidate, namely Pandiammal, who is the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 802/2013 and the first respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 852/2013 made the following submissions in his arguments:-

i) The election petitioner Muthulakshmi had alleged that 28 votes polled in her favour were wrongly declared invalid and the election petitioner sought recounting of the votes. When such is the case of the election petitioner, the trial court ought to have proceeded on the pleadings alone and the trial court wrongly decided the election petition after perusing the entries in the forms maintained by the Election Officer to render a finding that there was a contradictory statement entered in the forms, as the basis for declaring the victory the returned candidate invalid.

ii) The learned trial judge should have dismissed the election petition holding that the plea that the votes cast in favour of the election petitioner had been wrongly declared invalid, was a plea unfounded. The returned candidate, namely the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 802/2013 had rightly established that 57 votes were correctly declared as invalid by the Returning Officer and the same should have been accepted by the learned trial judge.

iii) The trial court should have held that a flimsy contradiction found in the deposition of RW2 would not invalidate the votes cast in favour of the returned candidate, namely the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013, when the trial court has held that the allegation of wrong declaration of 28 votes cast in favour of the election petitioner as invalid was not established. Hence the trial court was not justified in interfering with the declaration of the results of the election made by the Returning Officer.

iv) The trial court committed an error in holding that the votes secured by each candidate recorded in Exs. A8 and A9 were contrary to the entries made in Ex. X1 and that there was no record for the postal votes, A contradictory entry in the official record would not be sufficient to invalidate the declaration made by the Election Officer.

v) The admitted case of both the parties is that, out of the total ballot papers numbering 2227 issued to the voters, only 2223 ballot papers were found in the ballot boxes. In addition, six postal votes were received. Out of the same, 57 votes were declared invalid and as per the declaration of the results made by the Election Officer, the returned candidate secured 1028 votes, whereas the election petitioner secured only 1023 votes. The authority, namely the Election Officer correctly declared the returned candidate as the winning candidate and the said declaration made by the authority was well supported by material evidence.

vi) The learned trial judge committed an error in holding that there was a procedural flaw in recording the counting of votes in the forms maintained by the authorities and such a finding by the trial court is liable to be set aside as one not supported by evidence.

Per contra, Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the election petitioner, namely Muthulakshmi, made the following submissions:

i) When the election petitioner submitted her objection with a request for recounting of votes before declaration of the results was made, the said request was not properly considered by the Election Officer, who acted contrary to law in not accepting the request for recounting of the votes and in declaring the election petitioner as successful candidate.

ii) It was clearly established by the election petitioner that improper votes had been accepted by the Election Officer violating the mandatory provisions of Section 259(1)(d)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Hence the learned trial judge was not at all justified in not allowing the recounting of the votes, even after holding that the election was not conducted properly in accordance with law.

iii) The Election Officer (3rd respondent in both the revision petitions) did not comply with the provisions found in Section 259(1)(d)(iv) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

iv) The learned trial judge committed a serious error in considering an order of this court made in the earlier civil revision petition filed against the order passed in the interlocutory application for recounting, while the main election petition was pending. The orders passed in the interlocutory application shall not have a binding force on the final adjudication to be made in the Election Petition and hence the refusal on the part of the learned trial judge to order recounting of votes was improper.

And

v) It is settled position of law of the country that any order passed in the interlocutory application by the trial court and the orders passed in the appeal or revision arising from such interlocutory application, would not be a ground on which the main issue shall be adjudicated finally. Having held that the counting of the votes was not properly done, the court below, ought to have allowed the prayer for recounting of the votes, but the court below simply rejected the prayer for recounting of votes mechanically without assigning valid reasons.

It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel for the defeated candidate, namely the election petitioner (petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 852/2013/1st respondent in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802 of 2013) that when the court below had arrived at a conclusion that the counting of the votes was not properly recorded in the records by the Election Officer, it ought to have directed recounting, which the Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram failed to do and that the same shall be a reasonable ground for interfering with the order of the Election Tribunal, namely the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 17.04.2013 made in Election O.P. No. 1/2011.

Learned counsel for the second respondent, who is also a defeated candidate and who secured less number of votes would also support the contention of the election petitioner either for recounting of the votes or for conducting a fresh election.

This court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on both sides. The materials relied on by the parties, copies of which have been produced in the form of typed set of papers, have also been perused.

It is the case of the election petitioner Muthulakshmi that soon after the counting was over and much before the declaration of results were made, she gave an objection in writing requesting the Election Officer to recount the votes, since according to her, as many as 28 votes secured by her had been improperly held to be invalid and that under such circumstances, the Election Officer should have deferred declaration of the results and ordered recounting. It is the further contention of the election petitioner that the entries made in the forms issued to the parties and the entries made in the forms retained by the Election Officer regarding number of votes polled, number of postal votes received show wide range of variations and that such variations would have made the learned Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) to order recounting of the votes.

Ex. X1 contains Forms 22 and 23. According to Form 22 containing details of votes secured by the three candidates who contested the election are as follows:

From the same, it shall be obvious that the total number of votes secured by the returned candidate Pandiammal from the ballot papers polled at the polling stations came to 1026 and adding two postal votes cast in her favour, the total number of votes secured by her came to 1028. Similarly, the votes secured by the election petitioner have been noted as 1021 + 2 (postal votes), totalling 1023 votes. The votes secured by the second respondent Mariammal have been noted as 119 + 2 postal votes = 121 votes. As per the said form, the total votes polled including the postal votes were (2223 + 6) = 2229 votes, out of which, 57 votes were declared invalid.

In Form 23 containing the details of election, the following figures alone are found:

Mariammal: 121

Pandiammal: 1028

Muthulakshmi: 1023

Total votes declared valid: 2172

In Ex-P2 Form ''20'' issued by the Chief Officer in-charge of Booth No. 25-AV (A. Pallapachery East) in Ward No. 1 Udayanathapuram Panchayat, the total ballot papers issued have been noted as 283. However, in the verification form used at the counting centre different figures are found. In the verification form, the total number of ballot papers to be found in the ballot box has been noted as 283, which corresponds to the figure found in Form ''20''. However, the number of ballot papers found in the ballot box has been noted as 284. Excess ballot papers found in the ballot box has also been noted as "1" (one). Two postal votes have also been noted. Down below in the tabular column the original figures noted in the third column meant for valid votes secured by each candidate, figures have been corrected and altered. It is pertinent to note that there are corrections in the figures of valid votes secured by each one of the three candidates.

Similar is the case of the document relating to Booth No. 26-AV Ward Nos. 2 and 3 (A. Pallapacheri West). In Ex. P3-Form ''20'' relating to ward Nos. 2 and 3, the total ballot papers issued in the booth came to be noted as 501. However, in the verification form used at the counting centre different figures are found. The ballot papers found in the ballot box had been originally noted as 498 and the deficit (missing) ballot papers came to be noted as 3 and the said figures were subsequently corrected as 499 and 2 respectively. Similarly, the valid votes secured by each candidate came to be corrected in column 3. Similar discrepancies are found in respect of Booth No. 27-AV (Panchayat Union Primary School, Arunthathiyar Colony) Ward No. 4, Udayanathapuram. In Ex. P4-Form ''20'' relating to Ward No. 4, the total ballot papers issued in the booth came to be noted as 418. However, in the verification form used at the counting centre different figures are found. But the ballot papers found in the ballot box had been originally noted as 419 and one vote was found to be in excess. Subsequently, the said two figures have been corrected to show as if the total number of ballot papers found in the box was 418. The noting that there was one excess vote has been scored out. Similarly, the valid votes secured by each candidate came to be corrected in column 3. There is no discrepancy in Ex. P5-Form ''20'' relating to Booth No. 28-AV Ward Nos. 6 and 7 (Kamudhi Panchayat Union Primary School), Udayanathapuram. In Ex. P6-Form ''20'' relating to Booth No. 29-AV Ward Nos. 8 and 9 (Panchayat Union Primary School), Udayanathapuram, the total ballot papers issued in the said booth came to be noted as 468. However, in the verification form used at the counting centre, Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 of the said Form have not been filled up. Down below in the tabular column, the number of votes polled in the symbol of "Hand Roller" came to be corrected.

The ballot paper accounts sheet (Form 20) relating to Ward Nos. 1, 3 and 4 came to be marked as Exs. A2 to A4. The ballot paper accounts sheet relating to Ward Nos. 6 and 7 has been marked as Ex. A5, whereas the ballot paper accounts sheet relating to Ward Nos. 8 and 9 has been marked as Ex. A6. The discrepancies found in the above said documents have been traversed and highlighted above. The proceedings of the Election Officer in his proceedings Na.Ka.A6/1118/2011 dated 21.10.2011 rejecting the request of the election petitioner Muthulakshmi for recounting has been marked as Ex. A7. The reason assigned by the Election Officer for the rejection of such request is that, since the counting was over, the request for recounting of votes could not be entertained and that the election petitioner Muthulakshmi had not assigned justifiable reason for her request for recounting. The reply to the Right to Information application of the election petitioner Muthulakshmi issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Kamuthi in his proceedings Na.Ka.A6/1118/2011 dated 28.10.2011 has been marked as Ex. P8. In the said reply, the following figures have been found noted:

Votes polled in the election to the Udayanathapuram Panchayat: 1206

Invalid votes: 46

Votes secured by Muthulakshmi: 384

Votes secured by Pandiammal: 667

Votes secured by Mariammal: 109

There are notings made against Sl. Nos. 3, 4 and 5. However the column dealing with the votes secured by the candidates who contested the election for the post of President of Udayanathapuram Panchayat, seems to have been scored off and smudged with ink. The details of votes secured by the three contestants are given as follows:

Pandiammal: 667

Mariammal: 109

Muthulakshmi: 384

A comparison of the above said figures with the figures found in Form 20, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner, would reveal grave irregularity and malpractice in counting and declaring the results of the counting. The same will give rise to a clear inference that the records have been tampered in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kamuthi to show a clear cut margin of votes by which the returned candidate, namely Pandiammal, won the election. The documents produced by CW1 marked as Ex. X1 and the evidence of CW1 shows that especially Forms 22 and 23 show the tally of votes in the following manner:

This figure is totally suppressed and different figures were fed into the computer and the reply to the application under the Right to Information Act gave entirely different figures, which are as follows:

Thus, in complete contra with Form 22 and 23, the following table will show how records have been manipulated in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kamuthi. The figures found in Form 22 and 23 are as follows:

A comparison of the above said table will make it clear that only in order to cover up the mistake committed by the Election

Officer in his attempt to suppress a material fact that the ballot papers issued and the ballot papers found in the ballot box and the postal ballot papers do not tally, it will make it obvious that the Election Officer was very much aware of the discrepancy in the declaration of result and that was the reason why such widespread discrepancies are found in the records.

It is also pertinent to note that in Form 20, corrections have been made to tally the figures in one booth, namely booth No. 25AV A-Pallapachery (east), wherein for Ward No. 1, one ballot paper was found to be in excess over the ballot papers issued in the said booth. Similarly, in respect of booth No. 26AV A-Pallapachery (west), two votes were found missing. In fact, the missing votes had been noted as ''3'' and the same has been corrected to ''2''. When such was the case and the difference was only marginal, namely five votes, there was every possibility of the recounting would have tilted the result.

Further, the election petitioner had given a requisition for recounting contending that 28 votes secured by her were improperly rejected. Under such circumstances, the Election Officer ought to have considered the request and ordered recounting before declaring the result. Because of the widespread discrepancies in the records and the failure on the part of the Election Officer to act on the request of the election petitioner for recounting, which request was given before ever the result was declared, the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) held that the counting process was not properly done and that the election result declared in favour of the Pandiammal should be set aside. However, the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) has chosen to dismiss the prayer of the election petitioner for recounting and declaring her to be the elected candidate. The Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) chose to do it, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner/revision petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 852/2013, simply because an interlocutory application seeking recounting of the votes before ever the election petition was heard on merits met with the fate of dismissal in the hands of the High Court in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 1825/2011.

The learned senior counsel for the Election Petitioner has rightly pointed out the fact that any order passed in an interlocutory application shall not have the effect of finally deciding an issue in the main case and that the dismissal of the interlocutory application filed by the election petitioner, namely I.A. No. 100/2011, not by the trial court which allowed the said application, but by the revisional court, namely High Court in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 1825/2011, will not be a res judicata for considering the desirability/justification of ordering recounting of the votes based on the finding rendered on the merits of the election petition. In the order made in the civil revision petition it has been observed as follows:

Following the principles laid down in the above said decisions, it has to be observed that since secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and the election petitioner has to establish the irregularities and illegalities committed in the process of counting and recounting cannot be ordered as a matter of course. Even though certain allegations are available in the election petition regarding irregularities, only if they were proved by cogent and convincing evidence, then the court can consider directing recounting of votes. This stage in this case is premature. The case is in part-heard stage and the allegations levelled by the election petitioner have to be established. Only after such proof, the court can order recounting.

The above is the excerpt from the order of this court by which the order of the trial court passed in the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 100/2011) directing recounting was set aside. The same was set aside not on the ground that no case for recounting was made out, but on the ground that the said application was premature and irregularities alleged in the election petition remained to be established. Only upon such establishment, the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) could consider directing recounting of votes. The language used by the learned single judge in the order dated 01.11.2012 made in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 1825/2011 will make it abundantly clear that the Election Tribunal (learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) has not ruled out the desirability and justifiability of directing recounting of the votes, if the election petitioner would be in a position to show irregularities or illegalities in the counting of votes.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No. 802/2013 relied on an order of a learned single judge of this court made in Patti Ochan Vs. K. Murugan, The Block Development Officer-cum-Panchayat Union Commissioner and M. Sekar, , wherein the Hon''ble Judge chose to direct recounting of the votes when the election petitioner had lost the election by one vote and it was his contention that out of 92 votes declared invalid, 86 were wrongly declared invalid. It was also observed there in that the ruling of the Two Member Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Ram Rati Vs. Saroj Devi and others, to the effect that as per Rule 76(3) of M.P. Panchayats Elections Rules, 1994, the submission of an application had been made mandatory for recounting of votes and that in the absence of such an application in writing the court could not order recounting was overruled by a Three Member Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi and Others, . The following were the observation made by the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi and Others, referred above:

In view of Section 122 and the Rules, we are unable to agree with the ratio laid down in Ram Rati''s case. It is not correct to hold that, in an Election Petition, after the declaration of the result, the Court or Tribunal cannot direct recounting of votes unless the Party has first applied in writing or recounting of votes. There is no prohibition in the Act or under the Rules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal to direct a recounting of the votes. Even otherwise a party may not know that the recounting is necessary till after result is declared. At this stage, it would not be possible for him to apply for recounting to the Returning Officer. His only remedy be to file an Election Petition under Section 122. In such a case, the Court or the Tribunal is bound to consider the plea and where case is made out, it may direct recount depending upon the evidence led by the parties. In the present case, there was obvious error in declaring the result. We, therefore, held that the ratio laid down in Ram Rati''s case is not correct.

In this case it was contended on behalf of the returned candidate that since no application in writing was submitted by the petitioner in the Election OP to the Returning Officer and hence her prayer for recounting was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The above said judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court shall be a fitting reply to the said contention of the returned candidate. Even in the absence of an application before the declaration of the result, if the facts and circumstances warrant the prayer for recounting made in the election OP can be allowed. This is so because as observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, a candidate may not even know that the recounting is necessary till after the result is declared. After the result is declared it shall not be possible to submit an application to the Returning Officer. The only remedy available to such a candidate shall be to file an Election Petition in which the prayer for recounting can also be made. If the facts and circumstances so warrant the Election Tribunal can direct recounting of the votes. In this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner in the election OP did not submit an application before the Returning Officer for recounting of the votes before the results were declared. It is true that she has not produced any copy of the application submitted to the Returning Officer in writing seeking recounting of the votes. But the order of the Returning Officer dated 21.10.2011 rejecting the request of the election petitioner for recounting, which has been marked as Ex. A7, will be enough to show that an application was made even before the completion of the election process, namely declaration of the result, but the same came to be rejected. By adducing oral and documentary evidence the Election Petitioner has made it clear that the number of ballot papers issued and the number of ballot papers counted as available in the ballot boxes, did not tally and that there had been a serious irregularity in recording the polling details and the details of votes secured by the election petitioner. It has also been demonstrated that records have been corrected in order to show a clear margin in favour of the returned candidate and that under such circumstances, it shall be just and proper that the ballot boxes should be opened in the presence of a Commissioner and the votes are recounted. For all the reasons stated above, the order of the Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram) dated 17.04.2013 made in Election O.P. No. 1/2011 suffers from infirmity, error and hence liable to be set aside.

In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed. The order of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 17.04.2013 made in Election O.P. No. 1/2011 is set aside. Mr. K. Samidurai, Advocate, is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to bring the ballot boxes from the Office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kamudhi with necessary police protection and entrust the same to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for safe custody in whose presence the ballot boxes shall be opened and votes shall be recounted by the Advocate Commissioner after fixing a date for the same and giving due notice to all the parties through their advocates. The report shall be placed before the Court for necessary consequential orders. The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as a remuneration. The petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions should equally contribute for the same. The transport expenses and other expenses shall be equally shared by the petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.

The matter shall be listed along with the report of the Commissioner in the First Week of June 2014.