Judgment :- 1. Petitioner herein is the first respondent in Election O.P. No. 57 of 1996 on the file of Election Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul. 2. Petitioner herein was one of the candidates for the post of President, Pallappatti Village Panchayat for which election was held on 9.10.1996. The Election Officer declared K. Ashokan (Petitioner herein) as elected as he had secured 1997 votes and S. Kunasekaran (election petitioner) had secured only 1981 votes. It was said that there were four postal votes, and 240 votes were rejected as invalid. Election Petition was filed before the District Court on various grounds. It was alleged that the petitioner herein had indulged himself in corrupt practice, by paying Rs. 100/-per voter on the midnight of 8.10.1996. It was also alleged that the Returning Officer had removed some votes and added the same as fake votes, etc. It is also stated in the Election Petition that the petitioner herein had hired motor vehicles for taking voters to polling booth. The expenditure is also said to have exceeded the limit prescribed. It was alleged that the Returning Officer was all along prejudiced against the Election Petitioner and, therefore, he rejected all the valid objections raised by him. It was further alleged that the Returning Officer was also acting according to his whims and fancies, violating all Rules. It is said that at the first round of counting, the election petitioner got 1017 votes and petitioner herein got 974 votes, and in the second round they respectively got 962 and 1021 votes. In the grounds raised in the election petition, various allegations have been made against the petitioner herein and also the Returning Officer. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by K. Ashokan, Petitioner herein, 4. Evidence was also taken by the Tribunal. 5. The Election Tribunal (District Judge) found that all these allegations are not proved. But at the same time, he was of the view that the rejection of 240 votes as invalid was wrong, and they were required to be recounted. The Order of the District Judge reads thus: — Tamil The same is assailed by the petitioner herein in this Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the various grounds taken in the Revision, petitioner contended that the Tribunal has gone beyond the jurisdiction and the order is illegal, contrary to Statute and perverse. The Order of the District Judge reads thus: — Tamil The same is assailed by the petitioner herein in this Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the various grounds taken in the Revision, petitioner contended that the Tribunal has gone beyond the jurisdiction and the order is illegal, contrary to Statute and perverse. The finding that 240 votes which were declared as invalid and the relevant peredus (registers) should be produced ‘cannot be sustained. Petitioner has further contended in the grounds that the finding of the Tribunal that these 240 votes should be recounted, is one without jurisdiction. It is further contended that as per Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995, a request for recounting has to be made in writing after the counting is over. If no such request is made at that time, the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct recounting. It is further contended that the secrecy of vote will be affected, and the recounting should not be in search of evidence. On these grounds, he assailed the Order of the Tribunal and wanted the same to be set aside. 7. The first respondent herein anticipated the filing of a Revision and, therefore, he filed caveat and entered appearance through Counsel. The entire matter was heard in detail at the time of admission. 8. The only question that requires consideration is, whether the Order passed by the Election Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul, requires interference under Art. 227 of the Coustitution of India by this Court while exercising its judicial supervisory jurisdiction. 9. In a very recent decision of the Supreme Court, Viz., (1997) 6 SCC 66 (Ram Rati (Smt) v. Saroj Devi and others), a similar question was elaborately considered by their Lordships. It was a case arising under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994. Why I am referring to that decision is, because, similar to Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995, under the Madhya Pradesh Act also, there is a provision for recounting of votes. Rule 76 of the Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1994 has been extracted by Their Lordships in paragraph 26. The same is similar to Rule 66 of the Rules framed under our Act. Rule 66 reads thus: — “66. Recount of votes . Rule 76 of the Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1994 has been extracted by Their Lordships in paragraph 26. The same is similar to Rule 66 of the Rules framed under our Act. Rule 66 reads thus: — “66. Recount of votes . — (1) After the completion of the counting and recording in Form 22 the total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of Rule 64, the Returning Officer shall announce the same. After such announcement, and before the declaration of the result of the election, a contesting candidate or in his absence his election agent, may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount of all or any of the votes already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) On such application being made, the Returning Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part, or may reject in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the Returning Officer under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor. (4) If the Returning Officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application either in whole or in part, he shall — (a) count the votes again in accordance with his decision; (b) amend the result sheet in Form 22 to the extent necessary after such recount, and (c) announce the amendments so made by him. (5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (4) of this rule, the Returning Officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 22 and no application for a recount shall be entertained thereafter: Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the candidates or the election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (1).” In that case, their Lordships held thus: — “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 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 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 the court 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.” (Emphasis supplied) In this case, there is not even an allegation in the Election Petition that the petitioner has made a request to the Returning Officer for recounting. Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the Election Petition read as follows: — “The petitioner submits that the valuable golden opportunity of scrutiny before declaring the candidature was denied. Thus, the improper reception of votes in favour of the first respondent has materially affected the result of the election. In view of the irregularities and illegalities committed by the second respondent and his subordinates, the petitioner who had secured more votes than the first respondent was declared as unsuccessful candidate. As stated supra, the election of the first respondent as a successful candidate has materially affected and the malpractices committed by the respondents at the time of counting comes under mischief and the corrupt practices as enumerated in the election rules./There was no free and fair counting. As stated supra, the election of the first respondent as a successful candidate has materially affected and the malpractices committed by the respondents at the time of counting comes under mischief and the corrupt practices as enumerated in the election rules./There was no free and fair counting. No opportunity was given for re-checking and counting of invalid votes, even though the petitioner has got majority votes. In spite of the petitioners objection the second respondent turned deaf and refused to give an opportunity to recount and re-check it stating that there is shortage of time.” A reading of the above extract makes it clear that the election petitioner has not made any written request for a recount. 10. Rule 66 of the Election Rules also contemplates an application in writing to the Returning Officer for a recount stating the grounds on which he demands such a recount. When such an application is made, the Returning Officer has to decide the matter and may allow in whole or in part, or reject the application in toto. It also provides that any such order shall also be in writing, and reasons for the same must also be stated. In this case, the first respondent herein., i.e., the election petitioner has no case that he has filed any application in writing. The allegation in the Election Petition that opportunity was denied to him is only an afterthought. 11. In this connection, Rule 66 (1) says that a candidate can apply in writing to the Returning Officer to recount all the votes or any of the votes already counted. In fact, the petitioner herein has not made any such attempt. Following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, I do not think that the Order of the Tribunal can be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand). CMP No. 4016 of 1998 for stay is closed.