S. Vimala, J.

1. "It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting.

- TOM STOPPARD, Jumpers

1.1. Taking the same plea, the petitioner has filed Election Petition No. 3935 of 2015, seeking for a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent, as Village Panchayat President of Kumararajapettai Village, is null and void, and for recounting of votes polled, including the postal votes.

Election O.P. No. 205 of 2011 has been filed under Sections 258 and 259 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, [Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994] (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") by the unsuccessful candidate, G. Velu, against the returned candidate, N. Velu (R-4), and the Election Officers (R-1 to R-3), seeking for the relief, as stated supra.

2. The said Election Petition was allowed by the judgment, dated 23.04.2015, while imposing the costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the first respondent/the Block Development Officer, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District. Challenging the imposition of costs, the first respondent has filed the Revision Petition in CRP (NPD) No. 4518 of 2015. Challenging the order, declaring the election of the fourth respondent as null and void, the fourth respondent has filed the Revision Petition in CRP (NPD) No. 3935 of 2015.

3. As the common question of law and fact arises for consideration, common order is pronounced. The parties are referred to as per the legal status assigned to them in the Original Petition.

4. The facts, leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petitions, are as follows:--

"The petitioner contested the election for the post of Village Panchayat President of Kumararajapet Village, along with respondents. 4 to 6 under the symbol of 'hand roller'. Respondents 4 to 6 were assigned the symbols of Scissors, lock-and-key and ladder, respectively. Since the petitioner and the fourth respondent secured equal votes, the fourth respondent was declared elected by adopting the method of choosing 'by lot'."

4.1. The first respondent (Revision Petitioner in CRP No. 4518 of 2015) adopted corrupt practice in counting of the votes and colluded with the other officials in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner. The counting was not done properly and many votes were declared invalid. This was protested and objected by the petitioner, but it was not considered. The Returning Officer made corrections in the secured votes and thereby the petitioner was defeated. The postal votes were also not counted properly. The counting was not done according to the Rules. The application for recounting of votes was not considered.

4.2. Respondents 4 to 6 remained ex-parte. The Application was opposed by the first respondent. The counter filed by the first respondent was adopted by respondents 2 and 3.

4.3. The application was opposed by the first respondent on the following grounds:--

"As each of the petitioner and the fourth respondent secured equal votes, i.e., 604 each, selection 'by lot' was resorted to. The petitioner did not come forward to attend the lot and escaped from that place. However, the agent of all candidates were present. 75 votes were invalid. The agents did not raise any objection at the time of counting. The petitioner did not file any written objection with regard to the invalid votes. There is no violation of any rules or regulations/laws and there was no irregularity in the counting of votes including postal ballot votes."

5. Therefore, the issue to be considered is, (i) whether the petitioner has made out a ground, as contemplated under sub-section (1) (d) (ii) and (iii) of Section 259 of the Act; i.e., whether corrupt practice has been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by the first respondent, along with others, by the improper acceptance or refusal of vote or reception of any void vote; and (ii) whether a case for recounting has been made out.

6. In view of the issues raised,