MADURAI: Irked over the State's explanation for cancelling the winning certificate (Form 25) given to a Sivaganga panchayat president candidate and issuance of the same to another candidate, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court pulled up the State asking, "Under what powers did the returning officer assume the role of district court and cancelled Form 25?"
Hearing a petition filed by M Devi, an independent candidate whose Form 25 was cancelled by the returning officer of Sankarapuram village panchayat, a Division Bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and T Ravindran questioned, "Is there any provision to conduct counting or recounting of votes after issuance of Form 25?"
The judges rejected the contentions of the Additional Advocate General (AAG) K Chellapandian that the petitioner ought to approach the district court under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
They pointed out that the said power of the district court has become redundant in the present case since the returning officer herself, taking over the district court's powers, conducted recounting, cancelled Form 25 and issued a fresh one to the other candidate.
"If the returning officer, as claimed by district collector/election officer in the counter affidavit, had indeed found that some of the votes had not been counted, they should have advised the aggrieved candidate to approach the district court to seek for recounting," the judges opined.
They adjourned the case to January 13 for further hearing, adding that the stay granted on January 4, against oath-taking of the other candidate Priyadharshini, would continue till then.
Earlier, the district collector submitted in his counter-affidavit that the returning officer/Block Development Officer of the panchayat had issued Form 25 to the petitioner mistakenly, in a hurry, without even preparing the result sheet.
After coming to know that some votes had been left out, the official, in the presence of a poll observer and election officer, had recounted the votes under CCTV surveillance and thereafter declared the correct result, he explained.
Moreover, the grounds raised by the petitioner citing rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules that recounting cannot be done after declaration of results cannot be sustained, as the said rule will not come into play till 'all' the votes (as per under rule 64) are counted, claimed the collector.