C.R.P.(NPD) No.270 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.(NPD) No.270 of 2023

Janarthanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.R.G.Jaganathan

2.The Tamilnadu State Election Commission,

rep. by its Secretary,

No.208/2, Jawaharlal Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

3.The District Collector/

Tiruppur District Election Officer,

Collector Office, Palladam Road,

Tiruppur – 641 604.

4.The Returning Officer/Project Officer,

Women Welfare, Collectorate,

Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

5.The Assistant Election Officer/

Assistant Director (Hort)

Panchayat Ward No.17,

Udumalpet, Collectorate,

Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

... Respondents

_____________

Page No. 1 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.270 of 2023

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India to call for the records in EL.O.P.No.21 of 2020 on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Tiruppur and set aside the order dated

21.12.2022 directing recounting of votes.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Asokan

For R1

: Mr.C.Jagadish

For R2

: Mr.S.Sivashanmugam

For R3 to R5

: Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi

Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. Challenging the impugned order of the Principal District Judge,

Tiruppur dated 21.12.2022 in EL.O.P.No.21 of 2020, the petitioner/fifth

respondent has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial

Judge, without any sufficient material on the side of the first

respondent/election petitioner, erroneously ordered for re-counting the

_____________

Page No. 2 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.270 of 2023

votes by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and it is liable to be set

aside on the following grounds:-

i. The Trial Judge has failed to notice that the first

respondent/election petitioner and his agents were

present in the venue of counting all along during the

counting of the ballot papers and did not raise any

objection during the counting or thereafter till the

result of the election was declared even though they

had ample opportunity to raise objection.

ii. The Trial Judge has failed to note that the first

respondent/election petitioner has not followed Rule

66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules for

seeking re-counting of the votes.

iii. For re-counting of votes, a contesting candidate or

in his absence, his agent should apply in writing for

re-counting the votes before the Returning Officer,

after the completion of the counting and

announcement of votes polled for each candidate

and before the declaration of result of the Election.

In this case, neither the first respondent/election

petitioner nor his agent applied for re-counting after

the counting was over and before the declaration of

the result.

_____________

Page No. 3 of 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD) No.270 of 2023

iv. The only Letter dated 02.01.2020 said to have been

given by the first respondent/petitioner to the

Returning Officer which was marked as Ex.P5. In

the said Ex.P5 Letter, the first respondent/election

petitioner wanted the Returning Officer to re-count

the votes on the ground that the margin of votes

between the candidates was meager and the number

of invalid votes is more. However, in the said

Ex.P5 Letter, there is no reference with regard to the

irregularity in the counting as alleged by the first

respondent/election petitioner in the Election

Petition.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/fifth respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and others, (2000) 8 SCC 355,

wherein, the Court held as follows:-

16. The result of the analysis of the above cases

would show that this Court has consistentl