The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish the written request for recounting and to prove corrupt practices by the returned candidate or his agent to declare the election void under Section 259 of the Act.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order and Decretal Order, dated 16.09.2009 made in E.O.P.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Panchayat Election Court / District Court, Tiruvarur, declaring the third respondent as elected President of the Athichozhamangalam Village, Tiruvarur District, in the election held on 13.10.2006 as invalid and direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to re-count the votes polled in the president election for Athichozhamangalam Village and declare the result again.

2. It is an admitted fact that on 13.10.2006, Panchayat election was conducted for electing election the President for Athichozhamangalam village Panchayat. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 herein had filed their nominations before the second respondent, Chief Election Officer / Block Development Officer, Koradacherry, Tiruvarur District and after the election was over, the votes were counted on 18.10.2006. The petitioner herein has submitted that there are two wards for the Athichozhamangalam village Panchayat and the total number of votes polled were 540 and two postal votes were also received, out of which, one postal vote was polled in favour of third respondent and the other was polled in favour of the fifth respondent. The third respondent was announced to have polled 182 votes and declared elected by the second respondent. The petitioner was announced to have secured 178 votes, the fourth and fifth respondents respectively secured 131 votes and 29 votes, as announced by the second respondent herein. The petitioner has further stated that during the counting, there was barbed wire fencing, between the candidates or their agents and the place of counting. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was shown undue favour by the second respondent and his subordinates, as he was supported by the ruling party.

3. It is seen that the petitioner has raised 23 grounds in the revision, however, most of the grounds are similar or over lapping. The main grounds raised by the petitioner is that the Election Court failed to see that the petitioner had given his written request for recounting of votes under Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995. According to the petitioner, even the written request for re-counting was not received by the second respondent and there was no recount, though written request was given by the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the written request given by the petitioner herein before the second respondent was returned on the ground that the petitioner could approach only the Election Court. The petitioner has further stated that one Aruldas, son of Venugopal, Sl.No.244, D.No.111, Saravanan, son of Ramadass, Sl.No.322, Door No.151 and Devibala, Sl.No. 232, Door No.151 had voted in the election on 13.10.2006, in which, the petitioner contested as one of the candidates and the very same three persons subsequently voted in Arasur village Panchayat Elections, Coimbatore District, that was brought to light, as per the evidence adduced by P.W.2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid 3 persons are close relatives of the third respondent and they came to Athichozhalamangalam village and voted in the panchayat President election, though they were residing in Arasur village, Coimbatore.

4. The petitioner has further stated that the Panchayat Election Court has given a wrong finding that the petitioner had not given any representation to the Election Officer, the second respondent herein for re-counting the votes on 18.10.2006. According to the petitioner, the second respondent refused to receive the written request given by him for re-counting. The petitioner has further stated that though the written request for re-counting was rejected by the second respondent, the same was not considered by the Election Court. According to the petitioner, Election Court has given an erroneous finding that the petitione