1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.12466 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 Kannan ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Election Control Officer, Office of the Chief Election Control Office, Chennai. 2. The District Collector cum District Election Officer, District Collector Office Campus, Madurai District. 3. The Commissioner cum Election Officer, Vadipatty Panchayath Union, Madurai District. 4. A.Kulanthaianantham ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to conduct recounting for Chitalangudi Village Panchayat election dated 21.10.2011 by consider the representation preferred by the petitioner in person to the respondent No.3 dated 21.10.2011 and representation preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 dated 22.10.2011 and 30.10.2011 within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader for State Election Commission O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to recount the votes polled in the election to Chitalangudi Village Panchayat. 2. Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The petitioner contested in the Election for the post of President of Chitalangudi Village Panchayat, in the Election held on 17.10.2011. When results were declared, it was found that the fourth respondent was declared as elected by a margin of one vote. 4. Alleging that the result was manipulated by the third respondent, who is related to the fourth respondent, the petitioner made a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 representation on 30.10.2011. But the representation did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner seeks recounting of votes. 5. The Supreme Court has held very clearly that the margin of victory cannot be a ground for ordering recounting. The allegation based on which the petitioner seeks recounting, is a matter of fact which can be decided only in a trial. Once Form 25 is issued under Rule 69, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is only to raise an Election dispute. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise an Election Dispute. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Chief Election Control Officer, Office of the Chief Election Control Office, Chennai. 2. The District Collector cum District Election Officer, District Collector Office Campus, Madurai District. 3. The Commissioner cum Election Officer, Vadipatty Panchayath Union, Madurai District. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 37579 ps W.P (MD)No.12466 of 2011 02.11.2011 TR :14.11.2011: 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/