The burden of proof to show a candidate's community lies with the candidate, and when the fact is within the exclusive knowledge of a person, the burden is on them to prove that fact.

1. The petitioner in E.O.P.No.121 of 2006, is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The revision petitioner filed the above election petition, challenging the election of the fourth respondent and prayed for a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent is illegal and to declare the revision petitioner as the elected candidate for the post of President of the Village Panchayat, in respect of Palaniyapuri Village, Attur Taluk and to take criminal action against the fourth respondent.

3. The case of the revision petitioner was that the post of President, in respect of the Palaniyapuri Village, Attur Taluk, was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community, and a notification under Section 57 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, was also issued reserving the said post for the Scheduled Tribe Community. The revision petitioner belongs to Hindu Malai Kuruvan Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the revision petitioner applied for the above said post and the fourth respondent also applied for the said post and both of them filed nomination and while scrutinizing the nomination papers, the revision petitioner raised objection stating that the fourth respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community and she belongs to Hindu Vaniyar Community. The revision petitioner's objection was not properly considered by the Returning Officer and the fourth respondent was allowed to contest the election for the reserved post and as she has secured maximum number of votes, she was declared as the successful candidate.

4. According to the revision petitioner, the fourth respondent belongs to Hindu Vaniyar Community and she does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, as claimed by her. Therefore, the declaration of election of the fourth respondent as a successful candidate has to be set aside and the revision petitioner must be declared as the successful candidate for the post of President for the Palaniyapuri Village.

5. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the revision petitioner stating that she belongs to Hindu Scheduled Tribe and her ancestors were natives of Thenkasi, Thirunelveli District and they belonged to Palliyan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe and four or five decades earlier, the family of the fourth respondent migrated towards north and the fourth respondent's parents and relatives resided in Kallanatham area. The family of the fourth respondent was a rich one and therefore, the husband of the fourth respondent married her with a hope of getting good dowry and other gifts. Eventhough, her husband belongs to Hindu Vaniyar Community, she continued to be a Hindu Scheduled Tribe woman and therefore, she is eligible to contest for the post of President, reserved for Scheduled Tribe.

6. Both the revision petitioner and the fourth respondent filed nomination and the revision petitioner was given ' Lock and Key' symbol and the fourth respondent was given 'Electric Bulb' symbol. During scrutiny of nomination, no objection was raised by the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner also did not produce any proof to show that the fourth respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. Therefore, the nomination of the fourth respondent was accepted and as she has secured maximum number of votes, she was declared as the successful candidate. The Court below, dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner has not proved that the fourth respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, and hence, this Revision Petition.

7. It is submitted by Mr. N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that admittedly, the Village Panchayat post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and the revision petitioner produced a certificate to the effect that he belongs to that Community and there is no dispute about the same. The revision petitioner also filed Exs.P.12 and 13, to prove th