A defeated candidate who made an unsuccessful attempt to unseat the returned candidate is the appellant. His Election Petition was rejected, not at the threshold, but after the commencement trial, on the ground of maintainability.

2. The appellant and the respondent were candidates for the election to the Local Bodies held on 24.9.2005. They contested from No.10 of Muthuvara Division of Puzhakkal Block Panchayat. The respondent was declared elected. Appellant filed Election Petition No.262/2005, before the District Court, Thrissur, for a declaration that the election of the respondent is void, on the ground that the result of the election was materially affected by improper counting of votes, improper tabulation, and other material irregularities. It was alleged that there was violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for short ‘the Act’) and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, (for short ‘the Rules). There was also a prayer to declare the appellant as elected.

3. In paragraph 6 of the Original Petition, it was averred, that the counting of votes was held on 27.9.2005, at Sree Sarada Girls Higher Secondary School at Puranattukara. The details of the persons and places where the counting of votes held were also stated.

4. In paragraph 7 of the Election Petition, the appellant had given the procedures followed by the returning officer in counting of votes. It was averred that votes received by each candidate were bundled into bundles of 50 ballot papers. The votes obtained by each candidate from each ward were entered in the tabulation sheet, at the table of the Returning Officer. At the end of such tabulation, petitioner secured 3487 votes and the respondent secured 3440 votes. According to the petitioner, she won by a majority of 47 votes. The petitioner had also given the details of votes polled in favour of herself, first respondent, ballots declared invalid, and the total votes. The number of postal ballots were also given. It was averred that the Returning Officer ought to have recorded the details of counting of ballot papers in Part II of Form No.24 and in the result sheet in Form No.25, and announced the particulars thereof under Rules 48 and 51 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, in short ‘the Rules’. The tabulation was completed at 7 p.m. on 27.9.2005. Petitioner approached the Returning Officer for declaration of results. But the Returning Officer delayed the same. At about 3 p.m. on 28.9.2005, the petitioner again approached the Returning Officer for a certificate, but he did not issue the certificate. It was also averred that as the petitioner was tired due to campaigning, she waited in a class room nearby, and slept for some time. At about 4.30 a.m., she went to the table of the Returning Officer for results. She was informed that the results were announced and the respondent declared elected, by a margin of 53 votes. According to the petitioner, the results were tampered with the Returning Officer and officials under him.

5. It was averred that tampering took place with respect to the result in Ward Nos.10/1 and 10/2. It was averred in the Original Petition that the petitioner secured 467 votes and respondent secured 462 votes. There were 25 invalid votes in ward No.10. Instead of showing that result, it was written as follows, “Ward No.10/1 petitioner-219 votes, respondent-241 votes, invalid votes-14 and total-474 votes, and in Ward No.10/2, petitioner-330 votes, respondent-257 votes, invalid votes-16, and total-603 votes”. The details were given as a tabular form in the Original Petition itself. It was averred that entry in the result sheet was incorrect, since the total number of ballot papers issues ward No.10/1 was only 351, as per the Ballot Paper Account issued in Form No.24 under Rule 41 of the Rules. When only 351 ballot papers were issued in Ward No.10/1, in the result sheet, the total votes polled was shown as 474. There is