This civil revision petition arises out of the dismissal of an Election Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the election of the fourth respondent herein to the post of President of Kuravapulam Panchayat Union in Nagapattinam District.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.L.Mahendran, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

3. In the elections held on 15.10.2006 to the post of President of Kuravapulam Panchayat Union, the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein contested. The petitioner secured 1,041 votes and the fourth respondent secured 1,238 votes. Consequently, the fourth respondent was declared elected.

4. The election of the fourth respondent was challenged by the petitioner in Election O.P.No.81 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagapattinam under Section

258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on the short ground that the fourth respondent was born in Malaysia, educated in Malaysia and was settled in Malaysia and that therefore, she was not entitled to contest the elections. But the fourth respondent took a positive stand that she is an Indian citizen, that she studied in India, that she got married to an Indian citizen and that she is also continuously residing in India, having a Family Card and also having her name included in the voters list.

5. The petitioner examined herself as PW1. She examined (i) her Agent as PW3, (ii) a resident of the village as PW2 and (iii) the Secretary of Vedaranyam Rural Development Bank, as PW4. PW2 stated that he is a native of Kuravapulam. He claimed to have known the parents of the fourth respondent. He deposed that the fourth respondent and her 4 siblings were born in Malaysia. PW4 did not throw any light on the citizenship of the fourth respondent. PW3 testified to the effect that he lodged objections to the nomination filed by the fourth respondent.

6. Apart from the oral evidence of herself and that of PW2, the petitioner filed about 16 documents to prove that the fourth respondent was a citizen of Malaysia. The documents by which the petitioner sought to prove her allegation against the 4th respondent are as follows:-

(i) The copy of the application filed by her Agent (PW3) to the Deputy Regional Passport Officer under the Right to Information Act, was filed as Ex.P3. By this application, the petitioner's agent sought information both as to whether the fourth respondent was a Malaysian citizen and about the details of her passport. But unfortunately, the fee required to be paid while seeking the information, was paid by PW3 in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of the Deputy Regional Transport Officer instead of the Regional Passport Officer. Therefore, under Ex.P6, dated 19.10.2006, the Passport Office returned the demand draft and also advised PW3 to approach the Malaysian High Commission for information. But PW3 did not pursue the matter thereafter with the Passport Office.

(ii) The letter dated 2.9.2006 written by PW3 to the Election Commission, was filed as Ex.P7. By this letter PW3 informed the Election Commission that the fourth respondent was born in Malaysia and had acquired citizenship there.

(iii) The non-availability Certificate issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to the effect that the birth of the fourth respondent was not registered, in the records of the village for the years 1955 to 1965 was filed as Exx.P15 and P16.

7. Thus, in effect, all that the petitioner could produce before the Election Tribunal were (i) the copy of a defective application to the Passport Office, which did not produce any result (ii) the affidavits of PWs 2 & 3 and (iii) the Non-availability Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. These documents and the oral evidence of PWs 2 & 3 were certainly not sufficient to establish that the fourth respondent