The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner to establish alleged irregularities in the election process, and the court will not order a recount of votes unless a clear case for it has been made out.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Election Tribunal, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, and the rules there under made in Election Original Petition No.299 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to declare the election of the First Respondent void by setting aside the order and decretal order dated 28.08.2009 and declare that the Petitioner is the duly election President of Madiathur Village and other consequential relief.

2. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner herein had contested for the post of President of Madiathur Village Panchayat as an independent candidate and the Petitioner was allotted ‘lock and key’ symbol. The First Respondent also contested for the said post as an independent candidate and he was allotted ‘bulb’ symbol, and the aforesaid election was held on 15.12.2006. As per the averments of the Election Petition, after the counting of votes on 18.10.2006, it was announced that the votes polled in favour of the First Respondent was 378 and in favour of the Petitioner herein was 377, invalid votes were 12 and the total votes polled was 767. The Petitioner was present at the time of counting of votes and found three of the votes out of 12 votes declared had been caused in favour of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the said three votes had been declared as invalid, on account of splitting of little drop of ink in the ballot papers however, the Petitioner would say that the aforesaid three votes ought to have been counted in favour of the Petitioner and on the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner herein submitted a letter on 18.10.2006 requesting the Returning Officer, Tiruporur for re-counting of votes before declaring the election results.

3. However, the Returning Officer, Tiruporur refused to order recall of votes but declared that the First Respondent won in the election by one vote. The declaration that the First Respondent won in the election by one vote, according to the Petitioner, is illegal and null and void. With the above pleadings, the Petitioner has filed the Election Petition No.229 of 2004 under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 read with Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1995, (1) to declare that the election result of the First Respondent as President of Madiathur Panchayat is null and void, (2) Order recounting of all the votes polled, (3) declare that the Petitioner was the duly elected candidate and is the President of Madiathur Panchayat, (4) direct the Respondents to pay the costs of the proceedings and (5) grant such other suitable reliefs. The First Respondent denied the averments of the Petitioner and submitted in his counter that on counting it was found that the First Respondent was polled with 378 votes out of 767, though the Petitioner was polled with 377 votes and 12 votes were declared as invalid. Hence, the First Respondent was declared the winning candidate. The Petitioner requested the Second Respondent to recall the votes polled, accordingly it was done by the Second Respondent and in the recounting one of the invalid votes from and out of the said 12 invalid votes was thoroughly verified and declared as valid which was also polled in favour of the First Respondent. According to the First Respondent, three votes out of 11 votes were declared as invalid as per Rules, because the Returning Officer found the LIT on the respective votes in the ballot papers. According to the First Respondent, the Petitioner herein has suppressed the facts and hence prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

4. The Second Respondent in the counter submitted that the counting was done properly and according to him no valid vote polled in favour of the Petitioner herein was rejected as invalid. According to the Second Respondent, neither the Petitioner nor his counting agent had raised any objection regarding