The Returning Officer becomes functus officio upon issuing Form 25, barring any subsequent actions or recount applications, as established by prior judicial authority.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court of first instance (Election Tribunal) after the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court which held that the Returning Officer has become functus officio once the Form 25 was issued to the Appellant at the first instance, can go into the subsequent action taken by her or not.

3. Though, arguments have been made at length by both sides, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment on the sole premise that the contention raised has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court and the same has attained finality inter se the parties in Writ Petition filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, who are also the same parties in the present appeal. We only record the following paragraphs-

“21. In a Democratic Country like, India, the people expect the officials to remain neutral.

Once Form 25 Certificate is issued, the Returning Officer becomes functus officio and she has no power to entertain any application for recount as per Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 which deals recounting of votes.

22. Rule 66(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995, makes it very clear that the Returning Officer has no power to entertain an application for recount after she had signed Form 22.

23. The ratio laid down in the judgment of this Court in M.Kumaresan v. The State Election Commissioner (cited supra), squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That apart, the Honourable Supreme Court in Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi and others (cited supra), held that after declaration of results, the Returning Officer has no power either to direct recount or to change the results of the election. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court held that once the result is declared, the only remedy of an aggrieved party is by way of an Election Petition.

24. Even assuming that the Returning Officer had issued Form 25 Certificate in favour of the petitioner wrongly, the remedy open to the fourth respondent is only to file an Election Petition under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act , 1994. After issuance of Form 22, Form 23 and Form 25 Certificate, the third respondent Returning Officer is not having any power to set aside the Form 25 Certificate. The third respondent Returning Officer will become functus officio after issuance of Form 25 Certificate.”

4. Much has been said on the liberty given to Respondent No. 1.

The said liberty has been given to raise the contentions other than the one already dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court at the earlier instance. Suffice it is to state that the question of non-issuance of Form No.25 before the issuance of Form No.22 is no longer res integra . The said issue has been raised, considered and concluded by the Division Bench of the High Court. Perhaps, the private respondent no. 1 has grossly misunderstood the liberty given to her by the High Court. The liberty given was with respect to the other issues which could possibly be raised that is premised upon the action of the Returning Officer. The action of the Returning Officer after issuance of the Form No.25 to the appellant on the first instance is completely closed for want of jurisdiction, as they become functus officio immediately. Once the Returning Officer is precluded from issuing another Form 25, the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal is also closed and therefore, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court is expected to go into the same.

5. We are of the view that both the Courts completely misunderstood the scope and ambit of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 vis-à-vis the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at the earlier instance.

6. Thus, we find that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court which confirmed the order dated 23.10.