LexVADIVELU versus SUNDARAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VADIVELU .... v. SUNDARAM AND ORS. OCTOBER I 0, 2000 B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Election c Panchayat Elections-Recounting of votes-Grant of-Allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting of votes-Mere general and bald allegations without any material facts-Election Tribunal-Order for recounting of votes set aside by High Court-Justification of-Held, recounting ~ can be ordered only if there is specific a/legation in the pleading regarding D irregularity or illegality in counting and Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the said allegations-Thus, High Court was justified in holding that Election Tribunal erred in ordering recounting of votes-Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995-Rule 122. ·../- Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1995-Rule 66-Election- E Allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting of votes-Application for recounting of votes before the Returning Officer-Filing of-Held, has to be made before the declaration of result but after the completion of counting. Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, /994-S.259(2)(d)(iii) & (iv)-Election- F Grounds for declaring election to be void-Held, could successfully be urged only if it is proved that the election of the returned candidate had been materially affected Interpretation of Statutes G Rule of Harmonious construction-Applicability of-Election-Postal ballot papers-Rejection of-Held, a harmonious construction of Rules provides that a postal ballot paper can be rejected only if it lacks the signature of the Presiding Offic ... · :s well as the distinguishing mark of the polling station-'!amil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995-Rules 51 H and 63. ~- 642 V ADIVELU v. SUNDARAM 643 - Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227-Revisional power of High A Court-Scope and Extent of-Held, in case of error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of the law Court can set aside the order passed by the Tribunal . ...... Appellant and respondents contested Village Panchayat elections for the post of President. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected by a margin of one B vote. Appellant's application for recounting of votes was rejected by the Returning Officer. Thereafter, appellant filed an Election Petition alleging that certain irregularities were committed in counting of votes. Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit contending that the allegations in the Election Petition were vague and insufficient to set aside the election. However, Election Tribunal appointed a Commissioner and ordered recounting of votes. c On recounting, appellant secured more number of votes than respondent No. 1 and was declared elected. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by Single Judge holding that the Election Tribunal was not justified in ordering recount of votes when no prime facie case for recounting was made out. Hence the present appeal. D On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court was not justified in holding that the election petition did not contain the necessary >' pleading for seeking recount ofvotes; that the powers of the Revisional Court are not as wide as the powers of the Appellate Court and, therefore, Single Judge of High Court should not have set aside the order passed by the Election E Tribunal On behalf of respondent No. 1 it was contended that Election Tribunal should not have ordered recount of votes when there was no foundation in the pleadings raised in the election petition; that in view of the proviso to Rule 63 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, the Commissioner should F have treated 31 ballot votes cast in favour of respondent No. 1 as valid even though they did not contain distinguishing mark of the polling station; that the appellant had filed an application for recount before the Returning Officer after the d~claration of election and failure to file a proper application for recount before the Returning Officer would disentitle him from making a similar prayer before the Election Tribunal. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Re-count ofvotes 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 H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A allege and prove that th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.