The petitioner must show that the result of the election was materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or rules in order to have the election declared void.

Petitioner in Election O. P. 161 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Changalpattu/Election Tribunal, constituted under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed challenging the order of Tribunal dismissing her election petition.

2. Election to District Panchayat Ward member - Ward No. 5 Thiruvelangadu constituency was held on 9-10-1996. It is women constituency. Petitioner contested election and she was allotted the symbol of two leaves. First respondent was given cycle symbol. In that election, first respondent was declared elected by a majority of more than 7000 votes.

3. In the election petition it is said that the election of first respondent is void for various reasons. It is said that first respondent registered her name in two villages as voter against the provisions of Section 18 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, and against Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and Rules. First respondent's name has been mentioned in Part I Ward No. 3 in roll No. 237. Her name also appears in Ward No. 4, roll No. 41. First respondent's name has been described as Krishnaveni whereas she gave her name as Krishnaveni Lakshmaiah, which is against the Election Rules and Regulations. She did not take steps to correct her name before filing nomination. At the time of nomination, petitioner objected to it and requested second respondent not to accept the nomination, but the same was without any success.

4. For these allegations, first respondent submitted that it is true that she filed nomination as Krishnaveni Lakshmaiah and there was no objection when nomination was filed. It is said that the identity of person is not disputed. Mere irregularity should not be taken into consideration for setting aside election. It is also said she has obtained more than 7000 votes than petitioner and even if irregularities are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that election is materially affected. Regarding the procedure in placing symbol, place where petitioner was placed in the ballot paper are all valid and these are all not initiating circumstances.

5. Tribunal marked Exs. A1 to A3 on the side of petitioner and B1 to B7 on the side of respondent. Petitioner got herself examined as P.W. 1 and her agent was examined as P.W. 2. First respondent was also examined as R. W. 1. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case and appreciating evidence, Tribunal came to the conclusion that no case is made out for setting aside election.

6. The allegation that first respondent had registered her name in two wards was found to be correct but Tribunal found that the same will not vitiate election and even if she has exercised her vote in both the wards, those two votes will have to be discarded. Regarding name of first respondent as Krishnaveni and Krishnaveni Lakshmaiah, Tribunal held that when petitioner herself admitted that it relates to the same person and voters also understood the person to whom they are voting, mere description will not affect the result of election.

7. I heard petitioner's counsel at the time of admission.

8. I have read the election petition which is also part of typed set of papers. It is seen that even though various irregularities are mentioned, petitioner has not pleaded that these irregularities materially affected the result of election.

9. Section 259 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act provide for grounds for declaring elections to be void. Relevant portion of the section read thus,

"Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the District Judge is of opinion - (a)(b)(c) - omitted.

(d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected-

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by a person other than that candidate or his agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or agent, or

(iii) by the improper ac