1957 Supreme(Mad) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Panchapakesa Ayyar and Mr. Justice Ganapatia Pillai
Thangalakshmi Ammal
Versus
Arunachalam
Writ App. No. 96 of 1957.
Decided On : 22 November 1957
G. R. Jagadisan, for Appellant.
S. Ramachandra Ayyar and V. S. Ramakrishnan, for Respondents.
Power of Tribunal to allow further particulars.
Headnote:Elections -Power of Tribunal to allow further particulars .
The facts are briefly these: The appellant had stood for election from Ward No. 13 of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality, a double member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the scheduled castes. The appellant and respondents 1 to 7 were the eight candidates who stood for the election held on 10th October, 1955. Respondents 2, 3 and 7 alone were eligible to stand for the reserved seat. Respondent 3, who obtained 680 votes, was declared elected to the reserved seat. The appellant, who got 653 votes, as against the 2nd respondent who polled 652, was declared elected to the non-reserved seat on the strength of his having secured one more vote. The 1st respondent obtained only 616 votes. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 138 of 1956 to set aside the election of both the candidates who had been declared successful. The Election Commissioner pointed out that no allegation of the commission of any corrupt practice by the candidates or by their agents had been mentioned and pressed for adjudication, and that the election had been sought to be avoided only on the ground that the irregularities in the conduct of the election had materially affected the final result of the election. He found, after a scrutiny of the votes cast, with the help of his clerks the candidates themselves being absent (1) that 158 voters polled their votes at wrong booths, and that the reception of their votes was in contravention of rule 27-A (1) (c) of the Rules for Conduct of Election of Municipal Councillors: (2) that there were 12 instances where the same voter had voted twice ; (3) that there were two instances of personation of dead voters ; (4) and that there were four instances of personation of living voters. He held applying these facts, to the facts of this election, that the results of the election had been materially affected by the improper reception of the above votes in the final counting by the Returning Officer. He, therefore, set aside the election, and ordered a fresh election.
Irregularities under each of the above four heads had been alleged and relied on in the petition, and instances were given in the lists attached to the petition, as required by rule 2. But, on finding that some of the particulars mentioned in the lists were not correct, as per the facts discovered later on, respondents 1 and 2 sought and obtained permission to amend the particulars in the lists. This amendment petition, which was allowed by the Election Commissioner, is I.A. No. 147 of 1956. The legality of that amendment was the thing most hotly contested in the writ petition before Rajagopalan, J., and before us in this appeal.
Some minor contentions, which were raised before Rajagopalan, J., are not now raised before us by Mr. Jagadisan, the learned counsel for the appellant. The most important of these was that the Election Commissioner did not count these votes in the presence of the candidates, and that this contravened the rules of natural justice and vitiated his counting. But, as it was not alleged that the counting, as a matter of fact, was not correct, or that the Election Commissioner had acted wrongly or with improper motive, Rajagopalan, J., negatived that contention, and Mr. Jagadisan did not very properly raise it again before us. Some things like examination for age or impotency or veneral disease, need not be done of one party, in the presence of the other by doctors etc.
Rajagopalan, J., did not agree with the contention of the appellant in the writ petition that the Election Commissioner had no pov/er at all to allow any amendment to the petition, giving further particulars of additional persons who had voted in the wrong booths, or who cast double votes or impersonated dead and living persons. He overruled the contentions of the appellant that was not allowed t