The District Collector vs Kalaivani

N. Kirubakaran, J.—The District Collector and the Returning Officer are curiously challenging the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Election O.P. No. 8 of 2012 by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, ordering re-counting of votes polled in the election, held on 19.10.2011, for the post of Panchayat Union Councillor, 3rd Ward, Mailam Panchayat Union, Mailam, Tindivanam Taluk.

At the outset, dehors the merits of the case, what has to be decided by this Court is whether the official respondents/petitioners herein have got any locus standi to challenge the impugned order or not. Absolutely, the official respondents have got no locus standi to challenge the order in question. If at all, any party is aggrieved, it can only be the elected candidate and she, alone, has got the right to challenge the order. There is no material produced before this Court as to how the petitioners have got locus standi and how they could be called as aggrieved persons. On the other hand, the petitioners are neutral persons, who were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the election and counting the votes polled. If the Trial Court ordered re-counting of the votes polled, it is the duty of the official respondents to obey the same and not agitate the matter before this Court, which would only go to show that the official respondents are siding with some other persons and for that purpose alone, the civil revision petition is filed.

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the 1st respondent contested the election to the post of Panchayat Union Councillor, 3rd Ward, Mailam Panchayat Union, Mailam, Tindivanam Taluk, held on 19.10.2011, along with respondents 2 to 5. After counting of votes, the 2nd respondent, namely, Bakiyam, was declared as elected to the said post. Challenging the said election of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent filed Election O.P. No. 8 of 2012 before the Principal District Court, Villupuram. In the said Election O.P., the 1st respondent, alleging illegality and irregularity during the counting of votes, had sought for re-counting of votes. The 2nd petitioner herein alone contested the said O.P. The 1st respondent herein was examined as P.W.1, who, deposed that during the counting of votes, it was not made clear as to how many votes were polled in her favour and the 2nd respondent and how many votes were invalid votes. The Trial Court also found that there is no mention, even in the counter filed by the 2nd petitioner herein, as to how many votes were secured by the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and other contestants and also the number of invalid votes.

Immediately after the counting of votes and before the declaration of results, the 1st respondent filed an application for re-counting of votes, which is also admitted by the petitioners herein. The said application is marked as Ex-P5 dated 21.10.2011. Ex-P6 is the application dated 24.10.2011 submitted by the 1st respondent to the Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner, Chennai, demanding re-election. Similarly, Ex-P7 is yet another application given by the 1st respondent to the Commissioner, Mailam Panchayat Union, demanding re-counting of votes.

The Block Development Officer, Mailam, was examined as R.W.1 on the side of the petitioners herein before the Trial Court. Through him, Ex-R2, namely, Form 22 was marked. The said document disclosed that the 3rd respondent herein, namely, Egavalli, secured 2 postal votes and 158 votes in the booth, amounting to 160 votes in toto; the 1st respondent had secured 10 postal votes and 956 votes in the booth, amounting to 966 votes in toto; Chandramathi, the 4th respondent herein, had secured 1 postal vote and 591 votes in the booth, totalling to 592 votes; Sulochana, the 5th respondent herein, had secured 1 postal vote and 413 votes in the booth, amounting to 414 votes in toto and Bakiyam, who is the successful candidate and the 2nd respondent herein, had secured 5 postal votes and 1026 votes in the booth, totalling to 1031 votes. At the time of counting, 147 polled votes and 5 postal votes were rejected as invalid. The difference between the votes secured by the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, the successful candidate, is 65, which is the winning margin and it is less than the invalid votes.

Taking note of the winning margin; the elected candidate remaining ex parte and the filing of representation by the 1st respondent after the counting of votes and before the declaration of results, the Trial Court ordered re-counting of votes. By re-counting of votes, no prejudice will be caused to any party and it can be decided whether there was any irregularity or fraud committed during the process of re-counting. Even after re-counting, if the result is the same, then, it can be said that counting had been done as per the procedure and if the result is otherwise, it has to be deemed that counting had not been done according to the procedure contemplated. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or irregular, when the winning candidate, has chosen, not to contest the matter. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed with a direction to the authorities concerned to commence the process of re-counting and conclude, as per the procedure adopted by the Trial Court, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.