The Election Commissioner has the power to allow amendments to election petitions and can exercise this power even after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed for filing the petitions.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions have been heard together as desired by the learned Counsel appearing in them because they raise substantially the same questions for decision. These petitions ask for certiorari to quash certain orders passed by the Election Commissioner appointed under the Rules for Decision of Election disputes under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920-hereinafter called the Rules. Writ Petition No. 388 of 1964 relates to an election to the Ramachandra puram municipal Council from Ward No. 6. The petitioner was declared elected.

( 2 ) THEREUPON the respondent, who was the rival candidate at the election, filed an election Petition before the Election Commissioner under rule 2 of the Rules for setting aside the election and declaring him duly elected. One of the main grounds for impugning the validity of petitioner s election was that, there was impersonation of dead voters. A schedule to the election petition mentioned the names of 8 dead persons who were allegedly impersonated at the election. Under rule 2 (1), the election petition had to be filed within seven days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The election petition in question was preferred within this period of limitation, that is to say, on 26th August, 1963. But on I7th January, 1964, the election petitioner filed LA. No. 59 of 1964 seeking permission to amend the schedule to the election petition by adding the names of three more dead persons who also were alleged to have been impersonated at the election. This application was resisted by the successful candidate on the ground that the Election Commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to allow an election petition to be amended. The election Commissioner overruled this objection and allowed the amendment. The successful candidate has therefore come up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 388 of 1964. The facts in Writ Petition No. 389 of 1964 are these : The election was from Ward No. 11 of Ramachandrapuram Municipality which was double member woman s constituency. One candidate for the general seat and another for the reserved seat were to be elected. The petitioner is the successful candidate, for the reserved seat. The first respondent preferred an election petition on 26th. August, 1963, under rule 2 challenging the validity of the election from Ward No. 11. One of the main grounds in support of the election petition was that, contrary to the prohibition imposed by section 47 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, two named persons, who were alleged to be lepers voted at the election for the successful candidate. On 17th January, 1964 the election petitioner-first respondent in W. P. No. 389 of 1964-perferred 1. A. No. 57 ot 1964 for amending the election petition by adding the names of three more persons who were also alleged to be lepers but who voted at the election in favour of the successful candidate, contrary to the provisions of section 47 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The successful candidate resisted this application for amendment on the ground that the Election commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to allow the amendment. The Election commissioner repelled this contention and permitted the election petition to be amended as asked for. The successful candidate has, therefore, moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 383 of 1964 to quash the order of the Election Commissioner. Two main contentions have been put forward in support of these writ petitions : (1) that the Election Commissioner has no power to allow amendment of an election petition and (2) even if he has such power he cannot exercise it after the expiry of the period of 7 days prescribed for filing the election petition. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents has, on the other hand, urged that he Election gommissioner has ample power and jurisdiction not only to allow an amendment but also to allow it after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document