BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26/09/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice K. VENKATARAMAN C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No.2081 of 2003 and C.M.P.(MD)No.15477 of 2003 Smt.S.Seeli .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Rakku 2. Manimekalai 3. Lakshmanan, Election Officer, Thiruvadanai Panchayat Union, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram Duistrict. .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 25.6.2003 made in I.A.No.76 of 2003 in Election O.P.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Sitharanjandas ^For Respondents 1 & 2 ... Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan For Respondent 3 ... Spl.Govt.Pleader(CS) :ORDER
The present revision is directed against the order of the learned
Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, dated 25.6.2003 made in I.A.No.76 of
2003 in Election O.P.No.1 of 2001.
2. The petitioner in the Election O.P.No.1 of 2001 is the petitioner
in I.A.No.76 of 2003. She has filed the said Election O.P. to declare the
election of the first respondent as Councilor in respect of Ward No.6
Thiruvadanai Panchayat Union held on 16.10.2001 as incorrect and also declare
that the petitioner was duly elected. One of the main complaint in the Election
Petition was that 228 votes exercised in Booth No.71 in favour of the petitioner
was taken into account in favour of the first respondent and this could be
proved only by production of the votes polled in Booth No.71. The petitioner
has also raised several other reasons for declaring the first respondent as the
successful candidate in the election held on 16.10.2001 is not valid.
3. The petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.76 of 2003 for
production of votes polled in Booth No.71 of Orikkotai village, Thiruvadanai
Panchayat Union 6th Ward. Her specific case in the said application was that in
Booth No.71, the total votes polled were 280, out of which petitioner has got
228 votes and the first respondent got 15 votes, the second respondent 32 votes
and 5 votes were invalid votes. Her further case is that 228 votes exercised
in her favour was taken into account in favour of the first respondent and the
votes which the first respondent got has been transferred to her account. The
said application was resisted by the respondents stating that the production of
votes will amount to recount of votes. The learned Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram dismissed the said application which has resulted in the
petitioner approaching this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner was declared elected on
21.10.2001 and she has been asked to approach the Thiruvadanai Panchayat Union
on 22.10.2001 for getting certificate declaring her as the successful candidate.
While so, when she has visited union office on 22.10.2001, it has been stated
that for obtaining consent, the papers have been circulated to the District
Collector and that she can come and collect the same on 23.10.2001. While so,
on 22.10.2001 it has been declared that the first respondent was elected as
Councilor in respect of Ward No.6 of the said Panchayat Union.
6. The counsel for the petitioner has further stated that even in
the Election Petition, it has been stated that out of 280 votes polled in Ward
No.71, the petitioner has secured 228 Votes. Further, according to him, it has
been stated in the election petition that the votes polled in her favour have
been taken into account in favour of the first respondent. The learned counsel
has further argued that if the vote polled in Ward No.71 is called for, the
entire truth will come out. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, in the interest of justice, the application should have been ordered
by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
7. Per contra, Mr. P.T.S.Narendravasan, the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent, has submitted that it is false to state that
the votes which have been exercised in favour of the petitioner in Ward No.71
have been wrongly included in the votes in favour of the first respondent.
Further, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the prayer
for recount has not been prayed for in the main Election Petition. Thus,
according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the petition deserves
no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader (C.S.) appearing for the
3rd respondent has submitted that the petitioner has already filed an
application in I.A.No.144 of 2002 to produce Form Nos.20, 22 and 23 and the same
has been allowed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram and
accordingly, the 3rd respondent has already submitted Form Nos.20, 22 and 23 in
the said Court and hence the present application is not maintainable. Further,
it has been stated that since the petitioner in the main Election Petition has
not prayed for recount of votes, the present application cannot be entertained.
9. The learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, while
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, has held that in the main
Election Petition, the petitioner has prayed only for declaration that she is
the successful candidate and for further declaration to declare the election of
the first respondent as invalid. Hence, in the main Election Petition, the
petitioner has not sought for recount of votes. Learned Principal District
Judge further held that the purpose behind the present petition is to recount
the votes that have been utilised in Booth No.71 which cannot be permitted in
view of the fact that the relief of recount of votes has not been prayed in the
main Election Petition.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced on the side of both the
petitioner and the respondents. It is true that the petitioner has not asked
for recount of votes in her Election Petition. But, as rightly pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the main Election Petition, the
petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 12 of the Election Petition,
that out of 280 votes polled in Booth No.71, the petitioner has secured 228
votes, the first respondent 15 votes, the second respondent 32 votes and invalid
votes were 5 in numbers. Again in paragraph 13, the petitioner has stated that
in Ward No.71, the votes secured by her have not been added in her account and
the same have been added in the account of the first respondent. It has been
further averred that in view of such malpractice, the first respondent was
declared as elected. Thus, the petitioner has clearly averred in the main
Election Petition that she has secured 228 votes in Booth No.71. While so, to
know the real truth and in the interest of the justice, the application in
I.A.No.76 of 2003, which has been filed for direction directing the 3rd
respondent to produce the votes registered in Booth No.71 cannot at any stretch
of imagination be called as unwarranted and unreasonable. The reasoning of the
learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram that the petitioner did not ask
for recount in the main Election Petition does not sound well. If the
petitioner has not whispered about the votes secured by her in Booth No.71 and
her apprehension that the votes secured by her are added to the account of the
first respondent, it can well be said that the application filed by the
petitioner for direction directing the 3rd respondent to produce the votes
registered in Booth No.71 cannot be entertained.
11. It is no doubt true that recount is not to be ordered merely for
the sake of asking or merely because the court is inclined to hold a recount.
It is also true that the to permit or not to permit a recount is a question
involving jurisdiction of the Court. But, when a specific plea has been raised
by the petitioner even in the main petition that 228 votes which she has secured
have been transferred to the account of the first respondent with a mala fide
intention, the Court cannot shut its eyes and refuse to grant relief to secure
the ends of justice. Looking at any angle, the dismissal of the application
filed by the petitioner is totally erroneous.
12. Hence, the order of the learned Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram dated 25.6.2003 in I.A.No.76 of 2003 in Election O.P.No.1 of 2001
is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The Civil
Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15477 of 2003 is closed.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
dpp
To
The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2081 of 2003
K. VENKATARAMAN, J.
After pronouncement of the order, Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made a request that the learned
Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram may be directed to dispose of the
Election O.P.No.1 of 2001 within a short period. Taking note of his request, I
direct the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram to dispose of the
Election O.P.No.1 of 2001 on or before 12.10.2006 and report the same to the
Registry.
26-9-2006
dpp
Office to note:
1) Issue Order copy tomorrow.
2) Send the Order copy to the
Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram forthwith.