The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent unfair practices and violations in the election, ensuring free and fair conduct of the election, and maintaining secrecy of ballot as per Election Rules.

Chitra Venkataraman, J.

.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary steps for ensuring a free and fair election in the coming Municipality Chairman Election in Nagapattinam.

2. The petitioner, an AIADMK candidate, is the Municipal Councillor of the 28th Ward of Nagapattinam Municipality. He states that in a public interest litigation preferred before this Court in W.P.No.40360 of 2006, by order dated 210. 2006, this Court recorded the statement of the Advocate General that the election to the post of Municipal Chairman would be held by following the secret voting system only. The Municipality Chairman election was conducted on 210. 2006. The allegation of the petitioner is that contrary to the statement given in the above Writ Petition, the secret voting system was not followed. The petitioner alleged that when he and other Councillors went to cast the vote, the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality restrained the 21 Councillors from casting the vote. Apart from that, the Election Officer of the Nagapattinam Municipality obtained signatures in stereotyped letters from 21 Councillors of Nagapattinam Municipality, stating that they do not know to read and write and that they were having low vision. When the Councillors refused, the third respondent received letters from them and he himself cast the votes of these Councillors on the ground that they were not literate and that they were having poor vision. It is alleged that the third respondent even addressed the media that he received letters from the Councillors and hence, he cast their votes.

3. The petitioner alleges that the Election conducted was not a fair and free one in the eye of law. The 21 Councillors are literates and are having good vision. At the time of swearing in on 210. 2006, these Councillors read out the oath and put their signatures. These Councillors also voted in the Municipality Vice Chairman election held in the afternoon of 210. 2006. The Councillors agitated on 210. 2006 against the action of the third respondent.

.4. Aggrieved by the malpractice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.43658 of 2006 to take action against the Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality. By order dated 111. 2006, the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Election Commissioner, District Collector of Nagapattinam District and the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality, to produce the original records pertaining to the Chairman election of Nagapattinam Municipality held on 210. 2006 and file reply statements. 20 Councillors of Nagapattinam District impleaded themselves and filed their counter affidavit. The District Collector, Nagapattinam and the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality filed their counter affidavits wherein, they admitted that 16 Councillors authorized the third respondent to cast their votes in the Chairman election held on 210. 2006. It was stated in the counter affidavit by the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality that he rendered assistance only at the request of the Councillors as per the provisions of Rule 109 of the Tamil Nadu town panchayats Third Grade Municipalities and Corporation (Election) Rules, 2006. The records containing the letters were also produced before this Court.

5. The petitioner contends that Rule 109 is not applicable to the said Councillors, since the said Rule is relevant only to persons who are illiterate, blind or physically infirm. It is stated that since the Chairman of the Municipality tendered her resignation on 22.03.2007, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. It is stated that there afterwards, the election was scheduled to be held on 12.04.2007 and again some of the members threatened the Councillors to cast their votes and to make identification marks in the ballot papers while casting their votes to show who voted for whom. The petitioner also alleges that the ruling party functionaries have threatened the Coun