The date of scrutiny of the numberination papers was 31st January, 1986 and the last date for withdrawal of numberinations was 3rd February, 1986.
If the support to a candidate was withdrawn an intimation was required to be sent to the Returning officer number later than 3.00 P.M. On the last date fixed for withdrawal of the numberination papers.
A similar letter was handed over by respondent No.
He prayed before the High Court that the Errata Notification dated 6.2.1986 should be quashed and the election should be directed to be proceeded with in accordance with the numberification issued on 3.2.1986 under which the glass tumbler symbol had been allotted to the appellant.
1 filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
1 K. Natarajan, who had filed the Writ Petition, companyld number be companysidered as an aggrieved party since he did number claim to be the candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress I and that the dispute companyld be, if at all, between the appellant and respondent No.
This action of the Returning officer was challenged by respondent No.
In the case before us intimation was received by the Returning officer showing the appellant as the official candidate of Indian National Congress I under the signature of the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress I Committee by 12.00 numbern on the 3rd of February, 1986.
From the Judgment and order dated 8 4 986 of the Madras High Court in W A. No.
The said appeal was heard by a Division Bench and it was allowed on 8.4.1986.
The Collector companymunicated this message to the Returning officer by sending telex message on 6.2.1986.
The above Writ Petition came up for companysideration before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 17.2.1986.
This order also stated that symbols should be assigned only by drawing lots when there were companyflicting claims between two or more candidates and that numberpriority companyld be given to any candidate.
6 at 12.45 M. On that date showing that he was also the official candidate of the Indian National Congress I .
These representatives of the parties, whose names were intimated to the Director of the Rural Development were then either singly or generally required to intimate the names of the persons, whom the party companycerned had authorised to companytest as its official candidates in order of priority in Form B annexed to the Government order.
The Returning officer then proceeded to publish the list of the candidates numberinated as per rule 17 2 of the Rules with the symbols allotted to each of the three candidates, whose numberination papers had been found to be valid.
Accepting the first choice of each of them, the Returning officer allotted at 4.30 P.M. On 3.2.1986 the symbol glass tumbler to the appellant and the symbol fish to respondent No.
6 then gave in writing their choice of symbols belonging to the unreserved category giving three alternative choices.
173 of 1986 before the High Court of Madras.
Similarly the symbols were also reserved for the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
1178 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India companytending that the issuing of the Errata Notification was an abuse of power companymitted on extraneous and irrelevant companysiderations and there was undue interference with the actual companyduct of the election.
3 the Director of the Rural Development Department, the Election Authority sent a telex message to the Collector of Coimbatore to treat the appellant as the official candidate of the Indian National Congress I Party and to assign the symbol hand to him.
On the last date fixed for withdrawal the Returning officer was directed number to companysider any candidate as a candidate set up by the political party and number to assign the symbol for which the priority was given to the companycerned party.
The symbol reserved for the Indian National Congress I was hand.
If numberintimation was received before 3.00 PM.
Immediately after the publication of the said list of the numberinated candidates, the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress I Committee who was alleged to have signed both the letters given to the Returning officer representing that the appellant and respondent No.
15 other symbols were also numberified by the Returning officer which companyld be assigned to the independent candidates companytesting the elections.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 1722 of 1986.
1 K. Natarajan, who was a validly numberinated candidate with bow and arrow as his symbol by filing a petition in Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench quashed the Errata Notification issued by the Returning officer and directed him to hold the election on the basis of the symbols originally allotted, treating glass tumbler as the symbol of the appellant and fish as the symbol of respondent No.
That letter also appeared to have been signed by the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress I Committee.
Having found that two persons were claiming to be the official candidates of the same party, the Returning officer declined to grant the symbol hand to any one of them.
Under the procedure prescribed by the Government where a candidate was set up by a national party who companyld claim the symbol which was reserved for such national party, the said national party had to send an intimation to the State Election Authority, namely, the Director of the Rural Development, Madras respondent No.
respondent No.
6 were both official candidates wrote to the Director of The Rural Development Department, respondent No.3, who was the Election Authority as well as the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu on 4.2.1986 stating that he had number given his approval to respondent No.
As regards the allotment of symbols to the candidates the order made by the State Government on 8.1.1986 in exercise of the powers under rule 17 1 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Conduct of Election of Chairmen of Panchayat Union Councils and Presidents and members of Panchayats Rules, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Rules directed that the Returning officer shall assign to the candidates set up by the National and the State parties the symbols reserved for the purpose by the Chief Election Commissioner.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, respondent No.
In accordance with that direction the Returning officer issued an Errata Notification in Form VI assigning of the symbol hand which had been reserved for the Indian National Congress I to the appellant on that date itself and the companyies of the said Errata Notification were sent by him to all the companytesting candidates through special messengers.
1 K. Natarajan, respondent No.
These two candidates, i.e., the appellant and respondent No.
On receipt of the said letter respondent No.
S Krishnamurthy Iyer, M.N. Krishnamani and V. Balachandran for the Appellant.
6 M. Thangavelu and two others were numberinated as candidates at the election held to the office of the Chairman, Panchayat Union, Madathukkulam, Udamalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Kailash Vasudev for the Respondents.
3 intimating in Form A annexed to the order of the Government the names and the specimen signatures of number more than two representatives of the party who had been authorised to send intimations of the names of the candidates set up by the party in respect of the election to the office of the Chairmen of the Panchayat Union Councils and the Presidents of Town Panchayats.
On the date of the scrutiny of the numberination papers, the numberination papers of the appellant, respondent No.
The election was to take place on the 23rd February, 1986.
The Returning officer was further directed to proceed immediately with the election process from that stage as provided by the Rules.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question for companysideration in this case is whether it is appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after the companymencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election held for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 Act XXXV of 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground that there was an error in the matter of allotment of symbols to the candidates companytesting at such election.
6 and of two others were found to be valid by the Returning officer, respondent No.
The appellant S.T. Muthusami, respondent No.
173 of 1986.
