Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. .1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary steps for ensuring a free and fair election in the coming Municipality Chairman Election in Nagapattinam. 2. The petitioner, an AIADMK candidate, is the Municipal Councillor of the 28th Ward of Nagapattinam Municipality. He states that in a public interest litigation preferred before this Court in W.P.No.40360 of 2006, by order dated 210. 2006, this Court recorded the statement of the Advocate General that the election to the post of Municipal Chairman would be held by following the secret voting system only. The Municipality Chairman election was conducted on 210. 2006. The allegation of the petitioner is that contrary to the statement given in the above Writ Petition, the secret voting system was not followed. The petitioner alleged that when he and other Councillors went to cast the vote, the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality restrained the 21 Councillors from casting the vote. Apart from that, the Election Officer of the Nagapattinam Municipality obtained signatures in stereotyped letters from 21 Councillors of Nagapattinam Municipality, stating that they do not know to read and write and that they were having low vision. When the Councillors refused, the third respondent received letters from them and he himself cast the votes of these Councillors on the ground that they were not literate and that they were having poor vision. It is alleged that the third respondent even addressed the media that he received letters from the Councillors and hence, he cast their votes. 3. The petitioner alleges that the Election conducted was not a fair and free one in the eye of law. The 21 Councillors are literates and are having good vision. At the time of swearing in on 210. 2006, these Councillors read out the oath and put their signatures. These Councillors also voted in the Municipality Vice Chairman election held in the afternoon of 210. 2006. The Councillors agitated on 210. 2006 against the action of the third respondent. .4. Aggrieved by the malpractice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.43658 of 2006 to take action against the Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality. By order dated 111. These Councillors also voted in the Municipality Vice Chairman election held in the afternoon of 210. 2006. The Councillors agitated on 210. 2006 against the action of the third respondent. .4. Aggrieved by the malpractice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.43658 of 2006 to take action against the Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality. By order dated 111. 2006, the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Election Commissioner, District Collector of Nagapattinam District and the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality, to produce the original records pertaining to the Chairman election of Nagapattinam Municipality held on 210. 2006 and file reply statements. 20 Councillors of Nagapattinam District impleaded themselves and filed their counter affidavit. The District Collector, Nagapattinam and the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality filed their counter affidavits wherein, they admitted that 16 Councillors authorized the third respondent to cast their votes in the Chairman election held on 210. 2006. It was stated in the counter affidavit by the Commissioner of Nagapattinam Municipality that he rendered assistance only at the request of the Councillors as per the provisions of Rule 109 of the Tamil Nadu town panchayats Third Grade Municipalities and Corporation (Election) Rules, 2006. The records containing the letters were also produced before this Court. 5. The petitioner contends that Rule 109 is not applicable to the said Councillors, since the said Rule is relevant only to persons who are illiterate, blind or physically infirm. It is stated that since the Chairman of the Municipality tendered her resignation on 22.03.2007, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. It is stated that there afterwards, the election was scheduled to be held on 12.04.2007 and again some of the members threatened the Councillors to cast their votes and to make identification marks in the ballot papers while casting their votes to show who voted for whom. The petitioner also alleges that the ruling party functionaries have threatened the Councillors that they would be present at the time of casting votes, that the Councillors would be issued pens to cast their votes which would help the ruling party members to identify who voted for whom. The petitioner alleges that the malady that afflicted the earlier election continue to prevail even now to defeat the very democratic principle with which the elections are to be held. The petitioner alleges that the malady that afflicted the earlier election continue to prevail even now to defeat the very democratic principle with which the elections are to be held. Considering the unfairness writ large and the possibility of maintaining a fair and free election again an impossible feat, the petitioner made a representation on 02.04.2007. Since the respondents have not taken any steps, the present Writ Petition is preferred before this court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to the respondent herein to take necessary steps to ensure free and fair Municipality Chairman election in Nagapattinam. 6. By order dated 10.04.2007, this Court directed the Government Pleader to take notice and get necessary instructions. This Court further directed that if the election to the post of Chairman of Nagapatinam Municipality is notified by the respondents, the Electoral Officer should hold the election only by secret ballot. .7. It is stated that the district Collector, in his proceedings dated 12.04.2007, cancelled the election proposed on 12.04.2007 and postponed the same. 8. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader, produced a copy of the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission dated 24.04.2007 before us today. It is stated there that the Commissioner had notified the election to be held on 07.05.2007 for the Nagapattinam Municipal Chairman Elections. It is also stated that the District Election Officer should ensure that necessary instructions are issued to the Returning Officer to discharge his duties effectively to ensure the secrecy of ballot by adopting the procedures as envisaged in the Election Rules, without giving any room for any complaint or litigations. The proceedings also instructed the District Election Officer/District Collector to review and arrange adequate police protection for free and fair conduct of the election in consultation with the District Superintendent of Police and to ensure conducive atmosphere for participation in all matters to cast their votes without fear or favour. The District Election Officer/District Collector was also directed to personally supervise and oversee the proper conduct of the election and to send a report on the arrangements made, before 30.04.2007. The Notification in RC.No.9232/2007/PE2 dated 23.04.2007 also indicated the last date for service of notice to the candidates as 29.04.2007 and the date of indirect election as 07.05.2007 to be commenced at 09.30 a.m. 9. The Notification in RC.No.9232/2007/PE2 dated 23.04.2007 also indicated the last date for service of notice to the candidates as 29.04.2007 and the date of indirect election as 07.05.2007 to be commenced at 09.30 a.m. 9. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the wake of the proceedings issued and the District Collector directed to supervise and ensure proper conduct of the election, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this matter. 10. Heard learned counsel for both sides. .11. Considering the violations alleged and the unfair practices adopted in the conducted of the election held earlier in spite of the assurance from the Additional Advocate General in the earlier round of litigation before this Court, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the ensuing election cannot be ignored. Hence, it is absolutely necessary that stringent measures merit to be taken to check any unfair practice to result in repeated allegations on the conduct of the election. It is but necessary that the authorities must prevent any possible violation to ensure free and fair conduct of election. Hence, taking note of all the circumstances, we feel that it is but necessary that an officer of this Court be appointed to act as an observer to ensure free and fair election and to maintain secrecy of ballot, as envisaged in the Election Rules. This would effectively check any possible abuse from any end. 12. In the circumstance, we hereby direct Mr. Devanathan, Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I), High Court, Madras, to be present on 07.05.2007 at the Nagapattinam Municipality as an observer appointed by this Court to ensure that the members cast their votes without any fear or favour with secrecy of ballot maintained. The District Collector/District Election Officer shall coordinate and render all assistance to Mr. V. Devanathan, Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I), High Court, Madras, who is appointed as the Court observer. We hereby direct the Court observer to file a report to this Court on 04.06.2007 with all his remarks in this matter. 13. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.