Judgment : This writ petition relates to the order passed by the State Election Commissioner dated 6.10.2006 by which the Election Commissioner held that the petitioner being the contesting candidate through her husband threatened the Assistant Returning Officer and tampered the records., thereby disqualifying the 4th respondent being contested for the election to the post of President of the Panchayat in Vagavayal Village, Ramannathapuram District. 2. The State Election Commissioner exercised power under Rule 143 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1996 and held that the proceedings of the Assistant Returning Officer be cancelled and the election to the post of President of Vagavayal Village was adjourned to a later date. It was stated that the District Election Officer/District Collector recommended the cancellation of the proceedings of the Assistant Returning Officer. He has also further stated that it was not possible to rectify the tampered records which resulted, in rejection of the nomination papers of the 4th respondent as invalid so that the petitioner could get elected unopposed. 3. In the writ petition, an interim order was granted after ordering notice to the Government. In the mean while, the 4th respondent, whose nomination paper was rejected, also got impleaded himself by order dated 12.2.2007. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R-1 to R-3 and Mr. R. Babu Jaganath, learned counsel for R-4 5. On behalf of the Election Commissioner, original records were also produced and also perused. The grounds on which the Assistant Returning Officer rejected the name of the 4th respondent was that while in the nomination form, he had given the age as 58 years and in the declaration form, he had stated 29 years and his name was also not found in the voters‘ list. It was on that ground the Assistant Returning Officer, who is also the Panchayat Union Commissioner rejected the same. When the information was sent by the Commissioner to the Election Observer, Ramanathapuram through telephone, and also the Election Commissioner, he informed that there was discrepancy in the date and the age of the 4th respondent and his age was shown as 29 years in the affidavit but in the nomination papers, it was shown as 58 years. When the information was sent by the Commissioner to the Election Observer, Ramanathapuram through telephone, and also the Election Commissioner, he informed that there was discrepancy in the date and the age of the 4th respondent and his age was shown as 29 years in the affidavit but in the nomination papers, it was shown as 58 years. Later, that file was called for on a complaint by the 4th respondent and it was found that there was overwriting against the age found in the nomination papers. 6. Even this Court, after perusing the records found that there was over-writing and the original age given in the declaration was 29 and it was converted into 58. Obviously, this could not have been done by the 4th respondent, who was contesting the election. The said over-writing goes into the very root of the matter, which resulted in disqualification of the 4th respondent so as to enable the petitioner to have a cake-walk to get elected unopposed, which must have been the handiwork of the petitioner as alleged by the 4th respondent. The District Election Commissioner/District Collector recommended for cancelling the proceedings of the Assistant Returning Officer to the State Election Commissioner. Therefore, the State Election Commissioner exercising power under Rule 143 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1996 cancelled the proceedings of the Assistant Returning Officer, which must be accepted. 7. The only contention of the writ petitioner was that there was no evidence that the petitioner through her husband carried out over-writing so as to reject the nomination paper of the 4th respondent and the petitioner having been the only candidate available in the field, she ought to have been declared elected and that opportunity was available to the 4th respondent to file an election petition if not satisfied with the election held and once the election process was over, the question of interference by the Election Officer does not arise. Therefore, the election held in favour of the petitioner must be accepted driving the 4th respondent to file an appropriate election petition. Further, there is no inherent power to the State Election Commissioner to deal with such matter and reference to Rule 143 of the said rules is inappropriate. 8. Rule 143 of the said rules reads as follows: “ 143. Further, there is no inherent power to the State Election Commissioner to deal with such matter and reference to Rule 143 of the said rules is inappropriate. 8. Rule 143 of the said rules reads as follows: “ 143. Removal of difficulties, if any, by State Election Commission- ( 1) The State Election commission may issue such general or special directions as may in its opinion be necessary, for the purpose of giving due effect to these rules, or holding any election under the Act. (2) If any difficulty arises in giving ‘effect to the provisions of these rules, or in holding any election, the State Election Commission as occasion may require, may, by order, do anything which appears to it necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.” 9. It must be stated that after the introduction of Part IX into the Constitution of India, the Panchayats and Municipalities have been given constitutional status and even the State Election Commissioner as the sole authority to conduct panchayat election has been guaranteed under Article 243(k)(i) of the Constitution, which reads as follows: “ 243K.( i) Elections to the Panchayats - The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a “State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.” 10. The primary duty of any Election Commission is to ensure purity of the election and if persons can manipulate the process of election, certainly, the Election Commission has powers and authority to interfere with. In the present case, it has been clearly established that the 4th respondent has been edged out of the contest by manipulation of the Assistant Returning Officer in collusion with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner in desperation cannot direct the 4th respondent to file an election petition since the process itself is vitiated in the present case. 11. This Court is satisfied with the correctness of the order passed by the State Election Commissioner. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Under the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Election Commissioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order obtained by the petitioner will stand vacated and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Under the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Election Commissioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order obtained by the petitioner will stand vacated and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. In view of the same, there is no impediment for the State Election Commission from going ahead with the election process of the President to the Vagavayal Village Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District.