INDULEKHA Vs. PREETHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below setting aside the election of the revision Petitioner, the returned candidate from Ward No. 8 of Kareepra Panchayat. The election of the revision Petitioner was impeached by the 1st Respondent herein filing an election petition as O.P.(Ele.) No. 5/05 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara on the ground that there was double voting by some of the voters, which were void, and also there were irregularities and malpractices by the Polling Officer, Counting Officer and Returning Officer in the counting of votes and declaring the result. Invalid votes were counted as valid votes, and there was illegal and improper reception and rejection of postal ballot papers was yet Anr. allegation imputed to impeach the result of the election declaring the revision Petitioner as the returned candidate. In the election petition, the Petitioner prayed for recounting of votes declaring the election of the returned candidate as void, and declaring her as the elected member from the ward. Challenges against her election were resisted by the revision Petitioner/1st Respondent in the election petition filing a counter refuting the allegations imputed as to the double voting, improper reception and rejection of postal ballot papers treating invalid votes as valid votes etc. She contended that no objection was raised by the Petitioner before the Returning Officer over the counting, and there was, in fact, a recounting at her request and, then only the returned candidate was declared elected as having secured the majority of valid votes polled. Another contestant in the election from the ward impleaded as the 2nd Respondent in the election petition, remained ex parte. The 3rd Respondent, the Returning Officer filed a counter contending that there was no irregularity or malpractice in the election and the counting was done in accordance with the rules.

(2.) In the election, the revision Petitioner had obtained 532 votes and the Petitioner in the election petition/1st Respondent herein got 531 votes. The 2nd Respondent in the election petition got only 42 votes. The revision Petitioner having obtained one vote more than the Petitioner in the election petition had been declared as the returned candidate.

(3.) The learned MunsifF, after appreciating the materials produced by both sides, arrived at the conclusion that one among the two voters named in the election petition examined as P.W.2, who was imputed of casting double votes in more than one constituency including Ward No. 8 had cast double votes. The vote tendered by P.W.2 in Ward No. 8 was treated as void, and recounting of the votes polled was ordered. In such recounting since one among the postal votes was seen containing the signature of the voter, and that being violative of the Rules, that vote was held to be invalid. P.W.2 had cast his vote in favour of the revision Petitioner. Similarly, the postal vote which was found to be invalid was also seen cast in favour of the revision Petitioner. Both these votes being rejected the Petitioner in the election petition was found having majority of one vote than the revision Petitioner and therefore, setting aside the election of the revision Petitioner, she was declared as elected from Ward No. 8 of Kareepra Panchayat. The revision Petitioner challenged the order preferring an appeal as A.S.No.53/06. The learned District Judge, after re-appreciating the materials and hearing the Counsel on both sides, concurring with the findings arrived by the court below, dismissed the appeal.