1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.12298 of 2011 N.Mithra Nagarajan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The District Returning Officer/The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Returning Officer/Commissioner, Kallikudi Panchayat Union, Madurai District. 3. Nagajothi ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the election of the third respondent to the post of President of Odaipatti village Panchayat, Kallikudi Panchayat Union, Madurai District and the order of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2023/2011/A6 dated 24.10.2011 as null and void and consequently direct the second respondent to recount the votes in respect of the election to the post of President of Odaipatti Village Panchayat, Kallikudi Panchayat Union, Madurai District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader for State Election Commission for Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent declaring the third respondent to have been duly elected as the President of the Odaipatti Village Panchayat is null and void and for a consequential relief of recounting of votes. 2. Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner contested for the post of President in Odaipatti Village Panchayat, in the election held on 19.10.2011. The petitioner was declared ultimately to have secured 298 votes and the third respondent was declared to have secured 304 votes. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Contending that there were a few malpractices and also seeking recounting, the petitioner claims to have made a representation even before the issue of Form 25 to the third respondent. But since it was rejected by an order dated 24.10.2011, the petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition contending that Rule 66(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules has been violated. 5. On the one hand, the contention of the petitioner is that he made a request for recounting before Form 25 was issued. However, the impugned order issued by the second respondent proceeds on the basis that Form 25 had already been given to the third respondent. This a dispute which can be resolved only by the Election Tribunal. 6. The question as to whether the Returning Officer complied with the mandate of Rule 66 or not, is also something which falls within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal. Therefore, the appropriate remedy open to the petitioner is only to go before the Election Tribunal. Hence leaving it open to the petitioner to adjudicate the matter before the Election Tribunal, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The District Returning Officer/The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Returning Officer/Commissioner, Kallikudi Panchayat Union,Madurai District. +1cc to Mr.A.Rahul, Advocate,SR.No.37002 ps GH : 29.10.2011 : 2p/4c W.P (MD)No.12298 of 2011 29.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/