Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 22, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191892

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191892
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala
Decided On: Mar 22, 2016
Case Number: CRP(NPD)No. 3849 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Subject: Election

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Election

Key legal issue: Election

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

.....writing and give reasons in support thereof, while seeking recounting. if it is not done, then the tribunal or the court is not empowered to direct recounting even after adduction of evidence and consideration of the alleged irregularities in the counting. the essential condition-precedent is that an application in writing should be made and the returning officer should pass an order with reasons in support thereof either to recall the order or otherwise, in writing. the fact that the officer had not passed any order in writing would indicate that the respondent had not made any application. obviously, some subsequent manipulation, as contended by the appellant, would have taken place, as a result of which the election petition was filed and the arguments were addressed for recounting. it is settled legal position that secrecy of ballot should not be breached and as far as possible, the secrecy of ballot should be maintained. in rare cases, the tribunal or the court is required to order recount, that too on giving satisfactory grounds for recounting. in view of the fact that the rule itself provides that, as soon as the result of the election is announced, an application in writing must be made at the first instance and the fact that no such application has been placed before us does indicate that no such application had been made on the date of the declaration of the result. the allegation of an application having been made, would be an afterthought. the tribunal, therefore, has committed manifest error in directing recount. 4. there is no material placed before this court to show that request for recounting was made before the returning officer. 5. under such circumstances, there shall be an order of interim stay until further orders.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in CDJ 1997 SC 1294 (Smt.Ram Rati vs. Saroj Devi and others).

3. It is pertinent to reproduce the reasoning given in para 8 of the Judgment.

8. It is difficult to give acceptance to the contention that the respondent made an application to the Returning Officer and the Returning officer had not recounted. In the light of the mandatory language of Rule 76 of the Rules, it is incumbent upon a candidate or an agent, if the candidate was not present, to make an application in writing and give reasons in support thereof, while seeking recounting. If it is not done, then the Tribunal or the court is not empowered to direct recounting even after adduction of evidence and consideration of the alleged irregularities in the counting. The essential condition-precedent is that an application in writing should be made and the Returning Officer should pass an order with reasons in support thereof either to recall the order or otherwise, in writing. The fact that the officer had not passed any order in writing would indicate that the respondent had not made any application. Obviously, some subsequent manipulation, as contended by the appellant, would have taken place, as a result of which the election petition was filed and the arguments were addressed for recounting. It is settled legal position that secrecy of ballot should not be breached and as far as possible, the secrecy of ballot should be maintained. In rare cases, the Tribunal or the court is required to order recount, that too on giving satisfactory grounds for recounting. In view of the fact that the rule itself provides that, as soon as the result of the election is announced, an application in writing must be made at the first instance and the fact that no such application has been placed before us does indicate that no such application had been made on the date of the declaration of the result. The allegation of an application having been made, would be an afterthought. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed manifest error in directing recount.

4. There is no material placed before this Court to show that request for recounting was made before the Returning Officer.

5. Under such circumstances, there shall be an order of interim stay until further orders.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Election Same Judge The Honourable Dr.(Mrs.) Justice S. Vimala