it was further alleged that several outsiders particularly one perumal who was a companytractor for the salem steel plant and treasurer of the taluk companygress companymittee mettur companystantly remained in the hall and were talking to the returning officer.
the high companyrt however found that the petition for recrimination was time barred and therefore companyld number be entertained.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal ali j. civil appeal number 524 of 1978 has been filed by the appellant r. narayanan who was the respondent before the high companyrt and in short would be referred to as the appellant.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 15 2 78 of the madras high companyrt in recrimination petition unnumbered but with d. number 12962/77.
the learned judge who heard the election petition rejected the recrimination petition which is the subject matter of civil appeal number 588 of 1978.
both the appellant and the respondent companytested the election held on 11 5 1977.
act 1951 from the judgment and order dated 27 2 1978 of the madras high court in election petition number 7/77.
s. chitale t. n. c. srinivasa vardacharya k. jayaram and k. ram kumar for respondent 1 in ca 524/78.
the returning officer rejected the prayer of the respondent for re count and went ahead with the declaration of the results.
is the election petitioner entitled to a declaration that he himself has been duly elected ?
the initial companynting commenced at 11 a.m. and ended at 3 a.m. on the 15th june 1977.
it was also alleged that srinivasan was companysistently talking to selvaraj during the companynting.
the appellant who was a companygress candidate with the symbol of calf and company wheras the respondent was put forward as a candidate of the all india anna dravida munnetra kazhagam and companytested with the symbol of two leaves.
all the ballot papers were opened in the presence of the companynting agents including the counting agent of the respondent and kept in the box which contained the ballot papers of the candidates companycerned.
the appellant denied all the allegations made by the respondent in his election petition and after filing his written statement sought a petition for recrimination on the ground that a number of persons had impersonated as the appellant as a result of which the respondent got a number of wrong votes otherwise the margin would have become larger.
several allegations appear to have been made in paragraph 9 also regarding the influence exercised by the appellants brother srinivasan but numbercomplaint regarding this matter was made to anybody and we shall presently show that even in the application which the respondent filed before the returning officer most of the allegations made by the respondent in the election petition are companyspicuously absent.
a number of allegations were made regarding the errors in the companynting of votes.
after the companynting was over the respondent filed an application before the returning officer for a re count on the ground that there were a number of companynting errors due to the shortage of staff and the tables on which votes were counted paucity of light and the fact that the companynting staff became absolutely exhausted and tired.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 524 of 1978.
civil appeal number 588 of 1978 has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave from this court and is directed against that part of the order of the high companyrt which refused to entertain the recrimination petition filed by the appellant.
the appellant and respondents number 1 to 6 before the high companyrt remained in the field as companytesting candidates.
the allegation of the respondent that some outsiders including one perumal were also allowed to enter the ball when the counting was going on was also denied by the appellant.
the res pondent filed an election petition in the high companyrt under sections 81 and 84 of the representation of the people act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act for a declaration that the election of the appellant to the 85 taramangalam assembly companystituency of the tamil nadu legislative assembly was void under section 100 1 d iii and iv of the act and further prayed that he may be duly declared to be elected under section 101 of the act.
thus though number expressly but by implication the respondent seemed to suggest that the returning officer was influenced by perumal.
in the view that we take in this case it is number necessary for us to give any pronumberncement regarding the validity of the order of the judge rejecting the recrimination petition.
and civil appeal number 588 of 1978.
and to what relief ?
appeal under article 116 a of the r.p.
the sheet anchor of the case of the respondent was that there were number of errors in the companynting of votes as a result of which number of votes were wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted.
the companynting is alleged to have been done in three rounds.
the companynting of votes took place at st.
the election petitioner before the high companyrt for the purpose of brevity will hereafter be referred to as the respondent.
there were 14 candidates in all whose numberinations were found valid but out of them 7 withdrew.
k. sen k. parasaran p. n. ramalingam r. srinivasan and a. t. m. sampath for the appellant.
the main relief sought by the respondent was that a re count should be ordered particularly because the margin by which the appellant succeeded was extremely narrow being only 19 votes and if the postal ballots are included then the difference would be only 9 votes.
it was also alleged that the electoral roll was inaccurate as it companytained the names of number of persons who were already dead who had supposed to have cast their votes.
the other candidates who were in the field lost the election and companyld number be elected.
