DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. KALAIVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Collector and the Returning Officer are curiously challenging the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Election O.P. No. 8 of 2012 by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, ordering re -counting of votes polled in the election, held on 19.10.2011, for the post of Panchayat Union Councillor, 3rd Ward, Mailam Panchayat Union, Mailam, Tindivanam Taluk.

(2.) AT the outset, dehors the merits of the case, what has to be decided by this Court is whether the official respondents/petitioners herein have got any locus standi to challenge the impugned order or not. Absolutely, the official respondents have got no locus standi to challenge the order in question. If at all, any party is aggrieved, it can only be the elected candidate and she, alone, has got the right to challenge the order. There is no material produced before this Court as to how the petitioners have got locus standi and how they could be called as aggrieved persons. On the other hand, the petitioners are neutral persons, who were entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the election and counting the votes polled. If the Trial Court ordered re -counting of the votes polled, it is the duty of the official respondents to obey the same and not agitate the matter before this Court, which would only go to show that the official respondents are siding with some other persons and for that purpose alone, the civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY after the counting of votes and before the declaration of results, the 1st respondent filed an application for re -counting of votes, which is also admitted by the petitioners herein. The said application is marked as Ex -P5 dated 21.10.2011. Ex -P6 is the application dated 24.10.2011 submitted by the 1st respondent to the Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner, Chennai, demanding re -election. Similarly, Ex -P7 is yet another application given by the 1st respondent to the Commissioner, Mailam Panchayat Union, demanding re -counting of votes.