Election petition is quasi criminal in nature.

(Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the Order dated 20-06-2005 made in I.A. No. 61 of 2002 in EL.OP No.171 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.)

The first respondent in El.OP.No.171 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, who is the successful candidate, is the revision petitioner. The first respondent herein, who is the nearest unsuccessful candidate has filed the above said Election Petition to call for the records namely the entire ballot papers, polled and unpolled, valid and invalid, in respect of the election for the post of President of R. Ponnapuram Panchayat and other connected records pertaining to the conduct of election and to declare that the first respondent herein is duly elected President of the said Panchayat in the election held on 16-10-2001 by declaring the election of the revision petitioner herein as President of R. Ponnapuram Panchayat as void and for other reliefs. In the said election petition, the first respondent herein has filed I.A. No.61 of 2002 under Section 130 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rules, 1995 to send for the ballot papers and connected records, which was allowed by the court below, hence the present revision is filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits as follows: -

The revision petitioner herein was duly elected as President in the election held on 16-10-2001; that the first respondent herein has also contested to the same post; that after the election was over, votes were counted on 21-10-2001; that in booth No.24, the total number of votes polled wrongly entered by the second respondent as 586 instead of 587, hence decided to recount, after recounting he found as 586; that at the end of counting both the petitioner and first respondent found secured 648 votes each; that the first respondent sought for recounting, in which the petitioner was found secured 650 votes and the first respondent secured only 648 votes, with the result, the revision petitioner was declared won the election; that aggrieved by the said result, the first respondent herein has filed the election petition; that in the said election petition, I.A. No. 61 of 2002 was filed by the first respondent praying to call for the ballot papers and connected records, which was erroneously allowed by the trial court; that the court below did not appreciate the legal implications arising from the order; that the reasons assigned by the court below for allowing the application are invalid; that the impugned order was passed on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations, which amounts to affecting the secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions: -

i) (Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others) AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1249 wherein in para Nos. 6 and 7, it was held thus: -

6. An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case. If such material facts are set out the Tribunal has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents with which a Civil Court is invested under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. But the power which the civil Court may exercise in the trial of suits is confined to the narrow limits of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inspection of documents under Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be ordered under Rule 15, of documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the affidavit of documents of the other party, and under Rule 18(2) of other documents in the possession or power of the other party. The returning officer is not a party to an election petition and an order for production of the ballot pa