How did Returning Officer assume court’s role, HC pulls up State govt The district collector submitted that the returning officer/Block Development Officer had issued Form 25 mistakenly, in a hurry, without preparing the result sheet.
Published: 09th January 2020 05:32 AM
Madras High Court (File Photo | EPS)
By Express News Service
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?”
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 Additional Advocate General (AAG) K Chellapandian’s contentions that the petitioner ought to approach the district court under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
“If the returning officer had found that some of the votes had not been counted, they should have advised the aggrieved candidate to approach the district court to seek recounting,” they opined. They adjourned the case to January 13 for further hearing, adding that the stay against oath taking of other candidate Priyadharshini, would continue till then.
The district collector submitted that the returning officer/Block Development Officer had issued Form 25 mistakenly, in a hurry, without preparing the result sheet. The grounds raised by the petitioner citing rule 66 of Panchayat Election Rules that recounting cannot be done after declaration of results cannot be sustained, as the rule will not come into play till ‘all’ the votes (as per under rule 64) are counted, he claimed.
Published: 09th January 2020 05:32 AM
Madras High Court (File Photo | EPS)
By Express News Service
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?”
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 Additional Advocate General (AAG) K Chellapandian’s contentions that the petitioner ought to approach the district court under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
“If the returning officer had found that some of the votes had not been counted, they should have advised the aggrieved candidate to approach the district court to seek recounting,” they opined. They adjourned the case to January 13 for further hearing, adding that the stay against oath taking of other candidate Priyadharshini, would continue till then.
The district collector submitted that the returning officer/Block Development Officer had issued Form 25 mistakenly, in a hurry, without preparing the result sheet. The grounds raised by the petitioner citing rule 66 of Panchayat Election Rules that recounting cannot be done after declaration of results cannot be sustained, as the rule will not come into play till ‘all’ the votes (as per under rule 64) are counted, he claimed.
No comments:
Post a Comment