JUDGMENT :

S. ANANTHI, J.

Prayer in C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1153 and 1154 of 2021: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 12.07.2021 and allowing the I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 in E.O.P. Nos. 7 of 2020.

C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1157 and 1159 of 2021: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 in E.P. No. 6 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 12.07.2021.

C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1184 and 1185 of 2021: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 in E.P. No. 5 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 12.07.2021.

1. C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1153 and 1154 of 2021 have been filed to set aside the order, dated 12.07.2021 in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 in E.P. No. 7 of 2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1157 and 1159 of 2021 have been filed to set aside the order, dated 12.07.2021 in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 in E.P. No. 6 of 2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1184 and 1185 of 2021 have been filed to set aside the order, dated 12.07.2021 in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 in E.P. No. 5 of 2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

3. The issues to be decided in all these revision petitions are same. So, common order is passed in all these revision petitions.

4. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed on the ground that since the respondents are discharging the public duty and being custodians of the documents and video footage of the election, there is no legal impediment to call for the same from the respondent in their official capacity but the Court below misconceived the legal position and dismissed the I.A. The election petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the election under the ground of corruption and mal practice as defined in Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the petitioner has right to question the manner of election conducted but without considering the same the impugned order is passed. The petitioner did not ask any official communications and State secrets within the purview of Section 124 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, by misconception of the fact and law the impugned order came to be passed.

5. These revision petitioners have filed E.O.P. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 2020 and stated that the Panchayat Election notification was issued by the 1st respondent in the year 2019 for electing the President of N. Mettupatti Panchayat, Sattur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District and the election was held on 30.12.2019. The petitioners and the private respondents were contesting the election. The post of the Panchayat President allocated for women. The counting was held on 02.01.2020. The original petition has been filed to declare the election of the President of the N. Mettupatti Panchayat and the original petition stands posted for examination of the additional witness of the petitioner. In the original petition, the petitioners have mentioned the bribery of voters and the irregularities at the counting centre on 02.01.2020. At the time of counting, ballot boxes should be opened before the candidate or his representatives. But the candidate or his representative has not been allowed at 08.30 p.m. on the counting center. The entire affairs of the counting center on that day have been recorded on the Video Camera by the 1st to 3rd respondents. Since, video foota