1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.12538 of 2011 Arumugam :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Returning Officer/ The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Returning Officer/Commissioner, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District. 3.K.Karthikeyan :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2011 for recounting of votes in panchayat election in Utchapatti Village which held on 19.10.2011 within the time frame as fixed by this Court and pass such other further order or orders s this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For R2 : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider his representation and to order re-counting of votes in a local body election held on 19.10.2011. 2.Heard Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government pleader takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The petitioner contested for the post of President in Utchapatti Village Panchayat held on 19.10.2011. The counting took place on 21.10.2011. The third respondent was declared elected, with a margin of above seven votes. Contending that the third respondent indulged in corrupt practices, the petitioner gave a complaint. He also gave a complaint to the effect that the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were rejected as invalid. On the above ground, the petitioner seeks recounting of votes. 4.But a request for recounting ought to have been made by the petitioner as per the Rules. Even otherwise, after the issue of Form-25 in terms of Rule 69, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Election Tribunal under Section 259 of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 5.Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise an election dispute, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Returning Officer/The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Returning Officer/Commissioner, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District. +1CC to Mr.K.Mahendran, Advocate. SR.No.38619. Ses RP/18.11.2011/2P/4C. WP(MD)No.12538 of 2011 4.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/