1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.12589 of 2011 S.Sudha ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Chennai. 2. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.10.2011 and consequently order to conduct re- counting of votes in respect of Erakudi Village Panchayat, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For R – 1 : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader for State Election Commission For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation and to order recounting of the votes. 2. Heard Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. The petitioner contested for the post of President of Erakudi Village Panchayat in the Election held on 19.10.2011. Contending that there are discrepancies in the total number of votes polled and that some ballots were included unlawfully, the petitioner sought recounting. Since, recounting was not allowed, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that result has been officially declared under a notification published after the issue of Form 25 in terms of Rule 69. The moment it is done, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to go before the Election Tribunal. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the total number of votes do not tally. But the petitioner has not produced Form 22. Even then the question as to what happened to the remaining votes and why there was a discrepancy, can always be rised before the Tribunal. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to raise a dispute. As and when such a dispute is raised by the petitioner, the Election Tribunal shall make endeavor to dispose of it within six months as prescribed by the statute. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Chennai. 2. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.38505 +1cc to Mr.D.Shanmugaraja, Advocate, Sr.No.38309 ps ssk/21.11.2011 /7c -2p/- W.P (MD)No.12589 of 2011 08.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/