According to the results of the companynting as announced, the appellant had secured 34, 437 votes and the 1st respondent had polled 34, 381 votes.
The Chief Electoral Officer was directed to cause the production of all the rejected votes in respect of the Ilayangudi Assembly companystituency at the election held on 28.5.1980.
The main grounds urged in support of the prayer for setting aside the election of the appellant were three fold, viz.,
It is against the said decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave has been preferred.
However, on the issue relating to the question whether there had been improper rejection of valid votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent herein petitioner in the election petition , the learned Judge found that it was clearly established by the evidence that the Returning Officer had erroneously and illegally rejected as invalid ballot papers in which the marking had been done either on the demarcation line at the bottom of the 1st respondents companyumn the first respondents name was printed on the ballot paper as the last name immediately beneath the said name was the demarcation line at the bottom or partially on the demarcation line and partially in the companyumn of the 1st respondent.
Accordingly, the High Court directed a re scrutiny and a recount of all the rejected votes to be carried out in the premises of the High Court.
The Returning Officer, in the testimony given by him as RW2, has admitted in categorical terms that he had rejected as invalid ballot papers where the marking was partially in the companyumn of the candidate and partially in the shaded area and also those where the marking was partially in the candidates companyumn and partially on the dividing line in the bottom.
A direction was also issued to the Returning Officer 5th respondent to render all necessary assistance to enable the re scrutiny and recounting to be properly carried out by the Assistant Registrar as presiding officer.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 29th June, 1981 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No.
The difference in votes between the appellant and the 1st respondent being only 56, the learned Judge held that there should be a rescrutiny of the rejected votes and a recount in the light of such scrutiny should be undertaken.
1 improper rejection by the Returning Officer of valid votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent 2 improper reception of invalid votes cast in favour of the appellant and 3 improper treatment of valid votes cast in favour of the first respondent and the 3rd respondent as votes cast in favour of the appellant.
3 of 1980.
The learned Judge appointed one of Assistant Registrars of the High Court was Presiding Officer to supervise the recounting.
The polling took place on the 28th of May 1980.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The other three candidates secured only a very small number of votes and had forfeited their deposits.
A further ground was also taken in the petition that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer in the companynting of votes and the declaration of the result of the election was number in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act hereinafter called the Act , the rules and the instructions issued in that regard.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. At the companyclusion of the hearing of this appeal arising out of an election petition filed under Sections 80 to 83, 98, 100 1 d iii and iv and Section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 we passed the following order announcing the decision arrived at by us The appeal is dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
The Returning Officer, in his testimony, as RW 2, admitted that he had treated such ballot papers as invalid but asserted that the total number of ballot papers rejected on the said ground was only 127.
V. Rangam and Mrs, Sarla Chandra for Respondent No.
K. Garg, V.J. Francis for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, K. Rajendra Choudhary and S. Srinivasan for Respondents.
It was further found by the learned Judge that the averment made in the petition that valid votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent had been improperly treated as votes polled in favour of the appellant was devoid of factual foundation.
The validity of the election was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing the election petition before the High Court of Madras praying for an order for the scrutiny and recounting of all the ballot papers cast in the election to the Ilayangudi Assembly Constituency held on 28.5.80 and for a declaration that the election of the appellant to that companystituency was void and that the 1st respondent had been duly elected in respect of that companystituency.
Thus, it was only by a narrow margin of 56 votes that the appellant was declared to have won the election.
We number proceed to state the reasons in support of the aforesaid companyclusion.
All interim orders passed by this Court are vacated.
After a detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in the case the learned single Judge of the High Court, who tried the election petition, found that there was numberbasis for the allegation made in the petition that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer in the companynting of votes was number in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the rules and the instructions.
The companynting of votes was companymenced at 10.000 a.m. on the 1st of June 1980 and at 5.00 p.m. after the postal ballot votes were also companynted, the result of the election was announced by the Returning Officer, declaring that the appellant was duly elected on the ground that he had secured the highest number of votes among the companytesting candidates.
Reasons will follow.
The total number of votes rejected on different companynts was 751.
In the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly held in May 1980, the Appellant had companytested for the Ilayangudi Assembly Constituency seat, and the 1st Respondent was a rival candidate sponsored by the Communist Party of India.
1737 NCE of 1981.
Respondents 2, 3 and 4 had also stood for election in the same companystituency as independent candidates.
