BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22/12/2006
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM
W.P.(MD) No.10061 of 2006
AND
W.P.(MD) No.10310, 10318, 10319 and 10408 of 2006 and
W.P.(MD) SR Nos.43620, 44144 of 2006 and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2006 and
M.P.(MD) SR Nos.43622 and 44146 of 2006
W.P.(MD) No.10061 of 2006:-
M.Gomathi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Election Commission
Rep. By its Secretary
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.
2. The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli.
3. The Returning Officer
Mela Neelithanallur Panchayat Union
Tirunelveli District
4. K.Vellathurachi
5. Mr. S.Murugan
Commissioner / Block Development Officer
Mela Neelithanallur Panchayat Union
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 herein to
recount the votes in Ward No.14 of Mela Neelithanallur Panchayat Union in the
presence of any other Returning Officer other than the fifth respondent herein
and to declare the results by following the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Election Rules scrupulously.
!For Petitioner : Mr. S.Durairaj, for Mr. Veerakathir Raman
For Respondents : No Appearance.
W.P.(MD) No.10310 of 2006:-
M.Manikandan ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. N.Karmegam
2. Mallik
3. K.V.Mahalingam
4. Loganathan
5. P.Sevogan
6. Raju
7. Mannan Chinnadi
8. The Returning Officer for
Panchayat President and
for Ward Member-cum-Commissioner
Madurai East Panchayat Union
Chockikulam Madurai, Madurai District.
9. The State Election Commissioner, Chennai … Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the eighth respondent herein to
recount the votes in the election held on 13.10.2006 for Panchayat President for
Meenakshipuram Village Panchayat, Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai
District, in the presence of any other Returning Officer and to declare the
results by following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules
scrupulously.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Vijayakumar
For Respondents : No Appearance.
– – –
W.P.(MD) No.10318 of 2006:-
A.Sinnamokkai ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. The Chief Election Commissioner
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The District Collector
Theni District, Theni.
3. The Commissioner,
Pallayakotati Panchayat Union
Andipatty Taluk, Theni District.
4. A.Muthuraman ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to recount
the votes for the election held for the position of the Ward Member in Ward No.1
of Palayakottai Panchayath, Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sundaresan, for M/s. Sun Associates.
For Respondents : No Appearance.
– – –
W.P.(MD) No.10319 of 2006:-
S.Kundhidevi ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. The State Election Commissioner,
Rep. by its Secretary
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai - 26.
2. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Returning Officer,
Panchayat Presidents & Panchayat Ward Members
and Commissioner,
Thiruchuli Panchayat Union
M.Reddiapatti
Virudhunagar District.
4. V.Tamilselvi 5. M.Karuppasamy ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in
notice No.Na.Ka.7/1219/2006 issued by the third respondent herein dated
18.10.2006 and quash the same and directing respondents 1 to 3 herein to recount
the votes of women candidates in Ward No.5 of Thiruchuli Panchayath in the
presence of any other Returning Officer other than third respondent herein and
to declare the results by following the Provision of Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Election Rules scrupulously.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Muthu Krishnan & S.Mohan.
For Respondents : Mrs. V.Chellammal, Spl. G.P., for R-3.
No Appearance, for R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-5.
– – –
W.P.(MD) No.10408 of 2006:-
A.Prayer Sing Rajanayagam ... Petitioner -Vs.-
1. The Election Officer / Block Development Officer
Thiruvattar Union, Kanyakumari District.
2. The District Election Officer / District Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District … Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2006 for recounting the votes and
direct the respondents to recount the votes and announce the results of
Kannanoor Panchayat which was held on 15.10.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.C.Robert Bruce.
For Respondents : No Appearance.
– – –
W.P.S.R.(MD) No.43620 of 2006 (For maintainability):-
Parvathy … Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. The Assistant Returning Officer
Karuvantha Village Panchayat
V.K.Pudur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Returning Officer-cum-
Block Development Officer
Alangulam Union, Tirunelveli District.
3. The District Election Officer-cum-
the District Collector
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
4. The State Election Officer
Office of the State Election Commission
Vadapalani, Chennai. … Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to order
for recounting of the polled votes of the ‘Karuvantha Village Panchayat
President Election’ which was taken place on 15.10.2006 and consequently direct
the above said respondents to furnish the result of recounting vide Form No.22
to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Anand.
For Respondents : No Appearance.
– – –
W.P.S.R.(MD) No.44144 of 2006 (For maintainability):-
K.Kaliammal ... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. The State Election Commission
Rep. by its Commissioner
Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.
2. The Election Officer / Block Development Officer
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Chathirakadu, Ramnad District.
3. The Assistant Returning Officer
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Chathirakadu, Ramnad District.
4. Mr. Veluchamy
5. Kavitha
6. Muruganandam
7. Sathaiah
8. Sethu
9. Kesavan
10. Haridoss
11. Valarmathi … Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent herein to
recount the votes in the election held for Panchayat President for A.Puthur
Panchayat Union, Ramnad District, in the presence of the Returning Officer and
to declare the results by following the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Election Rules scrupulously.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Mahendran.
For Respondents : No Appearance.
– – –
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioners contested in the Panchayat Elections that were held on
13.10.2006 and 15.10.2006 respectively. The results were declared on
18.10.2006. The petitioners, who lost in the election sought for recounting of
the votes. But, according to the petitioners, no orders were passed by the
Returning Officers concerned. Hence the above writ petitions have been filed
seeking the above said reliefs. The contention of the petitioners is that once
a written application is filed under Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
(Elections) Rules, 1995 seeking recounting of the votes, the Returning Officers
are duty bound to either accept or reject the request of the petitioners, but
the Returning Officers concerned have not passed any orders on the applications
submitted by the petitioners.
2. Separate but identical submissions were made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that
when a written request for recounting has been made to the Returning Officer, an
order should have been passed either accepting or rejecting the same. Learned
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) S.R.No.44144 of 2006 submitted that the
petitioner in that writ petition has already filed an election petition and the
same is pending. Nevertheless the learned counsel submitted that an order
should be passed in the writ petition directing the recounting of votes.
3. The main issue that has to be decided in the above writ petitions is as
to whether the writ petitions are maintainable. For deciding the said issue, it
will be useful to refer to the following relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”):-
“(i) Section 258. Election petitions.- (1) 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.
(2) An election petition calling in question any such election may be
presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 259 by any
candidate at such election, by any elector of the ward concerned or by any
member.
(3) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the
candidates at the election.”
(ii) Section 259. Grounds for declaring elections to be void. – (1) Subject to
the provisions of sub-section (2), if the District Judge is of 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) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected, or
(d) that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate
has been materially affected –
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned
candidate by a person other than that candidate or his agent or a person acting
with the consent of such candidate or agent, or
(iii) by the improper acceptance or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote
which is void; or
(iv) by the non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or
orders made thereunder, the Court shall declare the election of the returned
candidate to be void”.
“(iii) Rule. 66. Recount of votes. – (1) After the completion of the counting
and recording in Form 22 the total number of votes polled by each candidate
under sub-rule (2) of rule 64, the Returning Officer shall announce the same.
After such announcement, and before the declaration of the result of the
election, a contesting candidate or in his absence his election agent may apply
in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount of all or any of the votes
already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount.
(2) On such application being made, the Returning Officer shall decide the
matter and may allow the application in whole or in part, or may reject it in
toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.
(3) Every decision of the Returning Officer under sub-rule (2) shall be in
writing and contain the reasons therefor.
(4) If the Returning Officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application
either in whole or in part, he shall –
(a) count the votes again in accordance with his decision;
(b) amend the result sheet in Form 22 to the extend necessary after such
recount; and
(c) announce the amendments so made by him.
(5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced
under sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (4) of this rule, the Returning Officer
shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 22 and no application for a
recount shall be entertained thereafter :
Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of
the counting until the candidates or the election agents present at the
completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the
right conferred by sub-rule (1).”
“(iv) Rule 122. Election petitions. – Save as otherwise provided, no election
held under the Act, shall be called in question except by an election petition
presented in accordance with Section 258 of the Act or the rules, to the
District Judge under whose jurisdiction the Panchayat or the District Planning
Committee or other statutory committees fall, by any candidate or elector
against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected.”
“(v) Rule 136. 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.”
4. To decide the above issue, it will also be useful to refer to the law
laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the following decisions:-
(a) In the case of Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and Others reported in 2000 (8)
S.C.C. 355 in paragraphs 19 and 20 it has been laid down as follows:-
“Rule 66 of the T.N.Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 states that after the
completion of counting and recording in Form 22 the total number of votes polled
by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of Rule 64, the Returning Officer shall
announce the same. After such announcement, and before the declaration of the
result of the election, a contesting candidate or in his absence, his election
agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a re-count of all or any
of the votes already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such re-
count. Therefore, an application for re-count shall be made before the
declaration of the result of the election, but after the completion of the
counting, when such result is entered in Part II of Form 20.”
(b) In the case of P.K.K.Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M.Mappillai Mohideen and
others reported in 1989 (1) S.C.C. 526 in paragraph 13 it has been observed as
follows:-
“The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result
and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the
secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected
candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of
evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the
recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of
justice, a Tribunal or Court should not order the recount of votes”. (Emphasis
supplied)
(c) In the case of Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee & Others and reported in 2006 (8) S.C.C. 487 in paragraphs 19, 24 and
29 it has been observed as follows:-
“19. It is well-settled principle that where elections are conducted in
accordance with the provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a
remedy of settlement of election disputes by filing an election petition before
a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse
cannot be taken to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view
has been taken in a series of decisions rendered by this Court. The earliest
decision was rendered in 1952 S.C.R. 218 = A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 64 (N.P.Ponnuswami
Vs. Returning Officer) by a Bench of six learned Judges. In this case the
nomination paper of the appellant for election to the Madras Legislative
Assembly was rejected by the Returning Officer. The appellant challenged the
rejection of the nomination paper by filing a writ petition in the High Court
which was dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with
the order of the Returning Officer on account of Article 329(b) of the
Constitution, which says that no election to either House of Parliament or to
the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such
manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate
legislature. In appeal, this Court examined the question whether the writ
petition would be maintainable at the initial stage against an order rejecting
the nomination paper. Certain observations made in A.I.R. Para 9 of the reports
are relevant and they are being reproduced below: (S.C.R. Page 228)
“The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two
attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going
on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226
of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been
expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an
election petition. Any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election
should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner
before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage
before any court”. (Emphasis Supplied)
24. There are several other decisions where the same view has been taken 1998
(1) S.C.C. 572 = A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616 (S.T.Muthusami Vs. K.Natarajan) is a case
relating to election to the office of Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1958 where it was held that the parties who are
aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of the
election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy and it
is not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the election process.
29. In view of the nature of the dispute raised, the proper remedy for the
petitioner was to file an election petition as provided in Section 31 of the Act
where parties could have got opportunity to lead oral evidence. No exceptional
or extraordinary circumstances were disclosed which could justify recourse to
the extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution and for not availing
the remedy provided by the Statute.
(d) In the case of S.P.Gupta Vs. Union of India (1981 Supp. S.C.C. 87 =
A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149) it is observed as follows:-
“The Court does not decide issues in the abstract. It undertakes determination
of a controversy provided it is necessary in order to give relief to a party and
if no relief can be given because none is sought, the Court cannot take upon
itself a theoretical exercise merely for the purpose of deciding academic
issues, howsoever important they may be. The Court cannot embark upon an
inquiry whether there was any misuse or abuse of power in a particular case,
unless relief is sought by the person who is said to have been wronged by such
misuse or abuse of power. The Court cannot take upon itself the role of a
commission of inquiry – a knight errant roaming at will with a view to
destroying evil wherever it is found .”
5. A close reading of the provisions contained in Sections 258 and 259 of
the Act and Rules 66, 122 and 136 of the Rules and the law laid down in the
various decisions referred to above leads this Court to the irresistible
conclusion that unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate
by acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high
degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the
Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or Court should not
order the recount of votes. Further as laid down in 2006 (8) S.C.C. 487
(referred to supra) where elections are conducted in accordance with the
provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy for settlement of
election disputes by filing an election petition before the tribunal, it is that
remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken to
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Section 259 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act provides that if the District
Judge is of the opinion that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a
returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper acceptance or
refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which is void, the Court shall
declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. One of the
allegation in the writ petitions is that some valid votes have been rejected and
invalid votes have been accepted and if such an allegation is alleged and proved
by acceptable evidence in the Election Petition instituted before the Election
Tribunal and if the Election Tribunal comes to the conclusion that it is
imperative to order recounting to do complete justice between the parties, then
recounting will definitely be ordered. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that a prayer for recounting cannot be made before
the Elections Tribunal is liable to be rejected.
7. In the decision rendered in the case of R.Narayanan Vs. S.Semmalai and
reported in 1980 (2) S.C.C. 537 = 1980 (1) S.C.R. 571 the same principle has
been reiterated. That was a case where the difference of votes between the
candidate declared elected and his nearest rival, who filed an election petition
was only 19 votes and which figure would have come down to 9 votes only if the
postal ballots were included. Even so the Apex Court after referring to a
number of decisions and Halsbury’s Laws of England and Fraser on Law of
Parliamentary Elections and Election Petitions held that without there being an
adequate statement of all the material facts are founded and such averments
being backed by acceptable evidence and the Court trying the petition being
prima facie satisfied that an order for recount of votes is imperatively
necessary to decide the dispute and do complete justice between the parties, an
order of recount of votes cannot be passed. Therefore, the right of a defeated
candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of
votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is
sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to
allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima
facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes
being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal
or Court should not order the recount of votes. Thus it is clear that merely on
the basis of averments contained in the affidavit an order for recounting of
votes cannot be passed. The candidate seeking recounting of votes should allege
all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in
counting of votes are founded and such averments should be backed by acceptable
evidence and if the Election Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie
satisfied that an order for recount of votes is imperatively necessary to decide
the dispute and do complete justice between the parties, an order of recount of
votes can be passed but otherwise. Therefore the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that in an Election Petition the plea for recounting
cannot be raised and the Election Tribunal cannot order recount is without
substance and the same is liable to be rejected.
8. A reading of Rule 66 of the Rules shows that if an application as
contemplated in Rule 66 of the Rules specifying the requirements of the Rules is
made, it is mandatory on the part of the Returning Officer to decide the matter
one way or other and such decision shall be in writing and further it should
contain the reasons therefor. Therefore, the contention of Mr. K.Mahendran
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.S.R.No.44144 of 2006 merits
acceptance, but it does not mean that simply because the Returning Officer has
failed to render a decision on the application filed by the candidate seeking
recounting of votes, a writ petition can be filed seeking recounting of votes.
Even under those circumstances, the only remedy open to the aggrieved candidate
is to file an Election Petition and seek appropriate remedy in the Election
Petition.
9. This Court is of the considered view that the appropriate remedy for
the petitioners in the above writ petitions is to file an Election Petition as
provided for in the Act and Rules where they can get an opportunity to led oral
evidence to establish their allegations. It has to be further pointed out that
no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are disclosed in the above writ
petitions which could justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy under Art.
226 of the Constitution and for not availing the remedy provided by the Statute.
10. In the light of the law laid down in the above said decisions, this
Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot set-aside the duly elected candidate as that can be
done only by the Election Tribunal in a properly instituted Election Petition.
Even if recounting is ordered as prayed for by the petitioners, no further
relief can be given to the petitioners, in these writ petitions as this Court
cannot set-aside the election of elected candidates. Therefore in the
considered view of this Court even if the writ petitions are entertained it will
not serve any useful purpose. It is settled law that if the Court cannot set-
aside the election no purpose would be served by issuing a writ and the Court
can dismiss the application on that ground alone. Therefore, as pointed out
above, when no relief can be given to the petitioners by issuing the writ as
prayed for, the petitioners will have no fruitful result. It will only be a
futile exercise and therefore this Court is of the view that the above writ
petitions are not only not maintainable, but even if the writ petitions are
entertained no useful purpose would be served by issuing a writ, the issuance of
which will be futile.
11. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.10318, 10319 and 10408 of 2006 and
W.P.S.R.No.43620 of 2006 admittedly filed applications for recounting only after
the results of the election were declared. Therefore the applications for re-
count were not filed in accordance with Rule-66 of the Rules, on this ground
also W.P.Nos.10318, 10319 and 10408 of 2006 and W.P.S.R.No.43620 of 2006 are
liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that on the facts and
circumstances of the present cases, the writ petitions ought not to have been
entertained for resolving the dispute relating to election.
13. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein are not
maintainable having regard to the controversy raised which is purely factual in
nature and could more appropriately be decided in an election petition, which
remedy is provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and the Rules.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are dismissed as not
maintainable.
srk
To
1. The Secretary
The State Election Commission
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026.
2. The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli.
3. The Returning Officer
Mela Neelithanallur Panchayat Union
Tirunelveli District
4. The Returning Officer for
Panchayat President and
for Ward Member-cum-Commissioner
Madurai East Panchayat Union
Chockikulam Madurai, Madurai District.
5. The State Election Commissioner, Chennai
6. The Chief Election Commissioner
State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
7. The District Collector
Theni District, Theni.
8. The Commissioner,
Pallayakotati Panchayat Union
Andipatty Taluk, Theni District.
9. The State Election Commissioner,
Rep. by its Secretary
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai – 26.
10. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
11. The Returning Officer,
Panchayat Presidents & Panchayat Ward Members
and Commissioner,
Thiruchuli Panchayat Union
M.Reddiapatti
Virudhunagar District.
K.MOHAN RAM, J.
srk
12. The Election Officer / Block Development Officer
Thiruvattar Union, Kanyakumari District.
13. The District Election Officer / District Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District
14. The Assistant Returning Officer
Karuvantha Village Panchayat
V.K.Pudur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
15. The Returning Officer-cum-
Block Development Officer
Alangulam Union, Tirunelveli District.
16. The District Election Officer-cum-
the District Collector
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
17. The State Election Officer
Office of the State Election Commission
Vadapalani, Chennai.
18. The State Election Commission
Rep. by its Commissioner
Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026.
19. The Election Officer / Block Development Officer
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Chathirakadu, Ramnad District.
20. The Assistant Returning Officer
Bogalur Panchayat Union,
Chathirakadu, Ramnad District.