1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01-12-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12453 of 2011 PM.Periyasamy .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State Election Officer, State Election Commission, Chennai-600 008. 2.The District Election Officer-cum- District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Returning Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 4.S.V.Meiyanathan 5.A.Arumugam (R-5 impleaded as per order of Court in MP(MD) No.1 of 2011 dt. .11.2011) .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to recount the votes for election of the Aranthangi Panchayat Union Chairman held on 29.10.2011, in the presence of any Officer deputed by the respondents 1 and 2 other than the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader. For Respondent-4 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent-5 : Mr.J.Bharathan O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to recount the votes polled in the election to the post of Chairman of Aranthangi Panchayat Union. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. I have heard Mr.K.Baalasundharam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 3. The petitioner was elected as the Councilor from Ward No.20 of Aranthangi Panchayat Union, in the elections held on 17.10.2011. The Returning Officer issued a notice dated 21.10.2011, convening the meeting of the elected Ward Councilors on 25.10.2011, for swearing in the newly elected Councilors. Thereafter, the election to the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Union was announced to be held on 29.10.2011. Accordingly, the election to the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Union was held on 29.10.2011. The Panchayat Union comprises of 26 Wards, as a consequence of which there were 26 Councilors. After the voting, the Returning Officer announced that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent had secured 13 votes each. Consequently, the Returning Officer held a draw of lots and declared the fourth respondent as having been elected. 4. Contending that 15 out of 26 Councilors supported him and that there was no possibility for the fourth respondent to have secured 13 votes, except by adding certain invalid votes in favour of the fourth respondent, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5. In normal circumstances, the only remedy open to the petitioner would be to file an election petition before the Tribunal. To enable this Court to interfere, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the case should fall under the category of rarest of rare cases. 6. To make the case come under the category of rarest of rare cases, the petitioner filed before this Court, the supporting affidavits of 14 elected Ward Councilors. This was done to demonstrate that he had the support of 15 out of 26 Councilors (14 Councilors plus himself). 7. But unfortunately for the petitioner, one elected Councilor by name A.Arumugam, who is the fifth respondent herein, came up with M.P.No.1 of 2011, seeking to implead himself as a party to the main writ petition. In the affidavit in support of the impleading petition, the fifth respondent herein claimed that he never signed any affidavit in support of the petitioner and that one of the 14 affidavits filed by the writ petitioner bearing his name, was not sworn by him. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the impleading petition, the fifth respondent has claimed that his signature had been forged in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner. He has also claimed that he neither signed any affidavit in support of the writ petitioner nor affixed any left thumb impression in any affidavit. 8. The writ petitioner filed a counter to the impleading petition filed by the fifth respondent herein. He has claimed in his counter that he was declared as the official candidate of one political party and that therefore, the member of the Legislative Assembly of that party was entrusted with the task of bringing the consensus among the Councilors for electing the Chairman. According to the writ petitioner, he entrusted to the Member of the Legislative Assembly, all the supporting affidavits to be signed by the Ward Councilors and that the said person returned the signed affidavits back to him. In other words, the writ petitioner admits https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 that he did not personally meet the fifth respondent and get his signature. 9. However, the petitioner claims that the fifth respondent was the person who proposed his name and that for obvious reasons, the fifth respondent had crossed floors and had come up with the impleading petition with ulterior motives. 10. Irrespective of the controversy surrounding the supporting affidavit filed by the petitioner in the name of the fifth respondent and the objection of the fifth respondent to the same, the fact remains that the petitioner did not have the support of as many persons as he claims in the writ petition. His projection in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that he had the support of 15 Councilors, had now fallen to the ground, after being rocked by a shock wave sent by the fifth respondent. Therefore, on the basis of the claim made by the writ petitioner, I cannot now adjudicate upon this election dispute by treating it as coming within the category of the rarest of rare cases. Hence this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise an election dispute. As and when an election petition is filed, the Tribunal shall try to dispose it within 6 months. There will be no order as to costs. Svn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ TO Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The State Election Officer, State Election Commission, Chennai-600 008. 2.The District Election Officer-cum- District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Returning Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 1 cc to Mr.TR.Jeyapalan, Advocate SR.No.42558. Order in W.P.(MD)No.12453 of 2011 Dated:01-12-2011 3P/5C RPB : 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/