1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.12305 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Maruthu :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Rep.by its Secretary, Opp to Koyambedu Bus Stand, 100 feet road, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Block Development Officer / Returning Officer, Mela Neelathanallur Panchayat Union, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 4.A.Azhagu Pitchai, Block Development Officer / Returning Officer, Mela Neelathanallur Panchayat Union, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 5.Mariyammal 6.Mariyammal :Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of declaration declaring that the election of the 5th respondent to the post of President, Thadiyampatti Village Panchayat in the election held on 19.10.2011 is invalid and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to recount the votes polled for the post of President, Thadiyampatti Panchayat in Tirunelveli District in the election held on 19.10.2011 by taking into account all the ballot papers in which the intention of the voters to vote for the particular candidate is evident. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. for R1 Mr.R.Karthikeyan, AGP for R2 to R3 ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above Writ petition challenging the declaration made by the 3rd respondent that the 5th respondent was duly elected to the post of President of Thadiyampatti Panchayat in Tirunelveli District. 2.Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3.The petitioner contested for the post of President of Thadiyampatti Panchayat in the election held on 19.10.2011. When result was declared, it was communicated by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner lost by a margin just one vote. 4.Alleging that several votes polled in her favour were rejected as invalid votes, the petitioner made a representation for recounting. But it did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the above Writ petition. 5.The question with regard to the correctness of the decision of the 3rd respondent to treat some votes as invalid, is something into which only an Election Tribunal can go as it requires evidence. Therefore, the appropriate remedy open to the petitioner is only to raise an election dispute. 6.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time taken by the Election Tribunal, makes the remedy under Section 259 as wholly ineffective. But the said grievance can be taken care of by appropriate directions. 7.Therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise election dispute. As and when a dispute is raised, the Election Tribunal shall make all endeavour to dispose of it within the period statutorily prescribed under Section 259(8) of the Act. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary, Opp to Koyambedu Bus Stand, 100 feet road, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Block Development Officer / Returning Officer, Mela Neelathanallur Panchayat Union, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. +1CC to Mr.I.Irulappan, Advocate. SR.No.37420. RP/11.11.11/2P/5C. W.P.(MD)No.12305 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/