The Madras high court has set aside the order of the returning officer in postponing the election to the post of vice chairman of Poolampatty panchayat in Salem district and held that C.R. Palanisamy, who was declared elected, was entitled to function as vice-chairman.
A division bench of Justices D. Murugesan and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja allowed the petition filed by C. R. Palanisamy.
The petitioner contended that in the election to the post of vice-chairman, of the 15 ward members, one absented himself and of the remaining he secured seven and his opponent Govindan secured seven.
The chairman cast his vote in his favour and the returning officer declared him as elected and issued a certificate. However, subsequently, at the instance of Govindan, the returning officer has declared the postponement of the election by backdating the notification as October 29, 2011, he added.
Accepting the arguments of senior counsel P. Wilson, the bench said a perusal of the minutes book shows that the petitioner was declared elected and he had been also issued with a certificate.
When the returning officer was about to paste the notice as to the declaration in the office notice board, the opponent and his supporters not only forcibly torn the certificate but also the ballot papers as well.
He brought the said incident to the notice of the district election officer. Except the minutes, there was nothing to indicate as to the decision of the returning officer to postpone the election as he had intimated with a date on October 29, 2011.
“Once the declaration was made, there is no provision for the returning officer to postpone the election. There is no minutes to support the decision of the returning officer to postpone the election, except the minutes relating to the happenings after the declaration of the result was made.
In these circumstances, when once the declaration was made, the declared candidate shall be deemed to have assumed office.
There is no power vested in the returning officer to postpone the election after the declaration is made. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner was well founded and must be accepted”, the bench added.