- (1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 passed in Election O.P. No. 6 of 2011 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: (i) The election for the post of Village President of Nanjai Sankenthi Village took place on 19.10.2011. The first respondent/petitioner-Kalimuthu contested the election in 'Scissors' symbol, whereas the revision petitioner/first respondent-Chandrasekaran contested the election in 'Lock and Key' symbol. The polling took place on 19.10.2011. The counting of votes was carried out on 21.10.2011 at Dalmiapuram Higher Secondary School in Pullampadi Union. After counting of the votes, the Returning Officer declared the revision petitioner/first respondent-Chandrasekaran as the person who won the election for the post of Village President of Nanjai Sankenthi Village in view of he having secured more votes than his opponent. The first respondent herein/petitioner-Kalimuthu seriously raised his objection relating to the counting process and sought for recounting of votes, but that was not responded to by the Officials. Whereupon, Election O.P. No. 6 of 2011 was filed before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichy. The matter was contested. The revision petitioner/first respondent-Chandrasekaran filed his counter affidavit. The respondents 2 to 4 therein also filed their joint counter affidavit resisting the petition. (ii) Up went the enquiry, during which on the side of the first respondent/petitioner-Kalimuthu, P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 6 were marked and on the side of the revision petitioner/first respondent - Chandrasekaran, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were examined, but no documentary evidence was let in. (iii) Ultimately, the District Judge allowed the said application and passed an order for recounting. However, in the operative portion of the order, he stated thus: (***)
(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the revision petitioner/first respondent-Chandrasekaran, filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging and impugning the order of the lower Court on various grounds.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/first respondent- Chandrasekaran, would pyramid his arguments thus: The lower Court was not justified in simply declaring the result announced in favour of the revision petitioner/first respondent as void even before recounting. Over and above that, the recounting itself was not required in view of no illegality having been proved to have been perpetrated at the time of counting of votes. The reason adduced in the petition filed by the first respondent/petitioner-Kalimuthu was vague as vagueness could be. Simply because he demanded recounting, the question of recounting cannot be ordered. There should be prima facie evidence to demonstrate and display that some illegalities were perpetrated at the counting centre or in the process of counting, but no such factual scenario could be gleaned. The defeated candidate Kalimuthu's self-serving documents namely Exs. P. 1 to P. 3 were marked and he contended as though while counting process was going on, he noted down the number of votes in his favour which did not tally with the votes ultimately declared in his favour by the Officer concerned. Recounting cannot be ordered simply for the sake of asking for it. Even the Compact Discs produced before this Court would not in any way denote and connote that there was any law and order problem occurred at the counting centre and that there was any miscounting or wrong counting, etc. Simply in a parrot like fashion, the first respondent/petitioner-Kalimuthu demanded for recounting before the Returning Officer and that it does not mean that the Returning Officer ought to have responded to his request. If such sort of requests are accepted, then no finality can be achieved at the counting centre and the democratic process would get throttled. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for the dismissal of the Election O.P. 6 of 2011.;