Judgment :- 1. In E.O.P.No.306 of 2006 (C.R.P.(NPD) No.3137 of 2008), the following are the allegations found in short as follows: 1.(i) On 110. 2006 the petitioner was elected as Member of Ward No.8 in Goundenpalayam 3rd Grade Municipality in the Municipal Election. He contested in A.D.M.K. Symbol. Goundampalayam Municipality consist of 18 wards. The following are the members elected under the symbols of the political parties: (1) The members elected under AIADMK symbol: a) Mrs. Rajeswari (4th ward) b) Mrs. M. Saradha (7th ward) c) Mr. M. Rajendran (8th ward) d) Mr. V. Velumani (10th ward) e) A. Rajendran (11th ward) f) Mrs. M. Bagyalakshmi (12th ward) g) R. Thangamani (15th Ward) h) K. Balasundram (16th ward) (2) The members elected under DMK symbol: a) Tamilselvam (1st Ward) b) Sivakumar (2nd Ward) c) K.M. Sundaram (6th ward) d) Mrs. Bhuvaneswari (18th ward) (3) The members elected under Congress symbol: a) K.S. Maheshkumar (3rd ward) b) K.K. Shanmugam (9th ward) c) P. Rajagopal (14th ward) (4)The members elected under MDMK symbol: a) Mrs. Nancy Michal (13th Ward) (5) The members elected as individuals: a) A. Nagaraj (5th Ward) b) R. Rajagopal (17th ward) 1.(ii) The first respondent is the Returning Officer, who conducted the election of Chairman of the Goundenpalayam 3rd Grade Municipality on 210. 2006 at the Municipal office. The petitioner and the second respondent contested for chairmanship of the Municipality. Both of them obtained 9 votes each. But at the time of counting of votes, the first respondent found that one of the members has exercised the vote in favour of the petitioner by marking in blue ink. The first respondent told the members that as per the election advises given to them by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission for the election of the Local Authority, the voters must use only Red Ink or Red Pencil while exercising their vote. Hence he declared the vote in blue ink exercised in favour of the petitioner as invalid. Then the first respondent declared the second respondent as elected as he obtained 9 (nine) votes. The petitioner and other members raised their objections for the said declaration made by the first respondent, but the first respondent ignored the objections. The petitioner on 210. 2006 itself and on 30.10.2006, by way of Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, sent his objections and also by telex to the first respondent. The petitioner and other members raised their objections for the said declaration made by the first respondent, but the first respondent ignored the objections. The petitioner on 210. 2006 itself and on 30.10.2006, by way of Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, sent his objections and also by telex to the first respondent. In the Handbook of 2006 containing advices issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission towards Local Authority Electioin, in para 10, the advise No.10.5 says that "the red colour pencil or red colour sketch pen may be used as an instrument for exercising the vote." It is further stated that to facilitate the voter, the election officer or the returning officer, has to provide the abovesaid instrument to every voter. It is further stated that the red colour pencil and red colour sketch pencil may be used as instrument in making the mark in the vote, but it does not say that the vote, containing the mark in an Ink other than red Ink as invalid. 1.(iii) The first respondent had neither conducted any meeting by calling the newly elected members of the Goundenpalayam Municipality nor explained the voters the voting procedure with reference to valid or invalid votes. No instructions was also affixed in the notice board regarding voting procedure. Without deciding the objections, the first respondent has no power to declare a person as elected. He should not have declared the result without referring the issue to his superior. Hence, the petition has been filed to declare the decision of the first respondent, proclaiming the second respondent as the Chairman of the Goundampalayam 3rd Grade Municipality, is improper and not valid in law and for directing the first respondent to conduct fresh elections to the chairmanship of the said Municipality after complying with the relevant provisions of law. 2. The following are the allegations contained in the counter filed by the first respondent: 2.(i) On 210. 2006 this respondent convened a meeting and one week earlier the rules were circulated to all the elected members. It is false to state that the voters were not permitted to take pen or pencil to the poling place. Rule 107 of Election rules were already informed by this respondent to all the members. The petitioner has alleged that the Returning Officer told that for polling purpose the voters have to use either red ink pen or red pencil. It is false to state that the voters were not permitted to take pen or pencil to the poling place. Rule 107 of Election rules were already informed by this respondent to all the members. The petitioner has alleged that the Returning Officer told that for polling purpose the voters have to use either red ink pen or red pencil. Excepting Tmt. Bagyalakshmiin, petitioner in E.O.P.No.4 of 2007, all the 17 members exercised their votes by using red ink. Since Tmt. Bagyalakshmi has exercised the vote by Blue Ink, it was rightly declared as invalid as per rules. Even though the objections were raised after declaring the result, no action need to be taken on the objections. The result was pronounced in accordance with rule 111 (g) of Election rules, since the Returning Officer is empowered to act as per rule 111(g), he need not approach or get instructions from his superiors. There was no violation of procedure or rules in the process undertaken by this respondent. Hence the declaration by the first respondent pronouncing the second respondent as Chairman of the Goundempalayam Third Grade Municipality, Coimbatore is proper and in accordance with law. Hence the petition has to be dismissed. 3. In the counter filed by the second respondent it is alleged as follows: 3.(i) The petitioner who was unsuccessful in the Chairmanship election filed the present petition to divert the minds of general public. He has also instigated another voter by name Smt. Bagyalakshmi to file an identical petition in Election O.P.No.4 of 2007. He is the defacto petitioner in the said election petition. He is not able to get majority votes by lawful means. It is not correct to state that both the candidates obtained 9 votes each. The petitioner did not get required votes and hence he lost the chairmanship election. The result of the election was properly announced by the Election Officer. The petition is not maintainable since the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and District Election Officer are not on the array as parties. The petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. The first respondent has properly carried out the rules and regulations set out in the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Elections) Rules 2006 [hereinafter referred to as "Election Rules"]. The petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. The first respondent has properly carried out the rules and regulations set out in the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Elections) Rules 2006 [hereinafter referred to as "Election Rules"]. The first respondent has clearly told the members that as per the prescribed rules the voters must use only Red Ink or Red Pencil while exercising their votes. It is incorrect to state that the petitioner raised objection and that it was ignored by the first respondent. On 210. 2006 at about 9.30 a.m. a meeting was conducted and the first respondent explained in detail as to how the voters should exercise their right in electing their Chairman. Further the first respondent very particularly explained the " Part VII of the Election Rules 2006." He has also instructed how to mark in the ballot paper, the pen to be supplied and the manner to participate in the election etc., well before the election." He has rightly declared one ballot paper invalid as it was against Rule 111 of Election Rules, which reads thus:- "Rule 111 – Invalid Ballot Papers – A ballot paper shall be invalid. .(a) if no vote is recorded thereon; or .(b) if the vote is so recorded as to render it doubtful to which candidate it is untended to apply; or (c) if the mark indicating the vote thereon is placed in such manner as make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given. .(d) if the votes are recorded in favour of more candidates than the number of members to be elected in the case of election of member of statutory committee; or .(e) if some mark other than the one authorized, is recorded to the name of a candidate; .(f) if any mark is made by which the member may afterwards be identified; or .(g) if the mark has been made by any instrument other than one provided for the purpose under rule 107." 3. (ii) While all the voters have exercised their right by using Red Colour Sketch Pen given by the first respondent, one of the voters purposely violated the election Rule 111 (f) and (g) by using a different colour ink pen and the voter was made identified by the mark and as such the first respondent has rightly declared the vote as invalid. There is no mala fide intention on the part of this respondent. Hence, this petition may be dismissed. 4. In Election O.P.No.4 of 2007 (C.R.P.No.3138 of 2008) it is averred as follows: 4.(i) The petitioner is one among the elected members in the Goundenpalayam 3rd Grade Municipality, who contested from the 12th ward under AIADMK symbol. (Other allegations are identical in E.O.P.No.306 of 2006). This petitioner also raised objections on 210. 2006 itself after the first respondent declared that the second respondent was elected as Chairman. Hence it is prayed that the declaration made by the first respondent on 210. 2006 announcing the vote exercised by the petitioner in the election of Chairman for the Goundenpalayam 3rd Grade Municipality, Coimbatore District be set aside and to declare as invalid and issue directions to him to count it or take into account as valid vote or to give direction to the first respondent to conduct fresh election to the election of Chaimanship of the abovesaid municipality after complying all the provisions of law. 5. In the counter filed by the first respondent, the allegations found are mentioned succinctly as follows: 5.(i) In the letter dated 30.10.2006 sent by the petitioner to this respondent, she has stated that the returning officer instructed to put 2 mark against the name for whom she wants to exercise her vote. But before the Court she has stated that the first respondent has not given any instructions to the voters as to the procedure. In the above said letter, it is further stated that the first respondent told that pen is available in the polling place and that in order to make a regular polling arrangement in the polling place, a red ink pen was kept, however, it is false to state that one person gave blue ink pen. On 210. 2006 the voters were permitted to utilize any colour ink pen to sign. On 210. 2006 this respondent convened a meeting and one week earlier the rules were circulated to all the elected members. It is false to state that the voters were not permitted to take pen or pencil to the poling place. Rule 107 of Election rules were already informed by this respondent to all the members. On 210. 2006 this respondent convened a meeting and one week earlier the rules were circulated to all the elected members. It is false to state that the voters were not permitted to take pen or pencil to the poling place. Rule 107 of Election rules were already informed by this respondent to all the members. In E.O.P.No.306 of 2006 the petitioner Rajendran has alleged that the Returning Officer told that for polling purpose the voters have to use either red ink pen or red pencil. Excepting this petitioner, all the 17 members exercised their votes by using red ink. Since the petitioner has exercised the vote by Blue Ink, it was rightly declared as invalid as per rules. Even though the objections were raised after declaring the result, no action need to be taken on the objections. The result was pronounced in accordance with rule 111 (g) of Election rules, since the Returning Officer is empowered to act as per rule 111(g), he need not approach or get instructions from his superiors. There was no violation of procedure or rules in the process undertaken by this respondent. Every act of this respondent was in accordance with law. Hence the petition has to be dismissed. 6. In the counter filed by the second respondent (K.M. Sundaram) the identical allegations are found as in the counter filed by him in E.O.P.NO.306 of 2006. The petition is not maintainable since the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and District Election Officer are not on the array as parties. The petition is bad for nonjoinder of parties. The first respondent has properly carried out the rules and regulations set out in the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Elections) Rules 2006. The first respondent has clearly told the member that as per the prescribed rules the voters must use only Red Ink or Red Pencil while exercising their vote. 6.(ii). On 210. 2006 at about 9.30 a.m. a meeting was conducted and the first respondent explained in detail as to how the voters should exercise their right in electing their Chairman and he also explained the "Part VII of the Election Rules 2006." He has also instructed how to mark in the ballot paper, the pen to be supplied and the manner to participate in the election etc., well before the election. He has rightly declared one ballot paper as invalid as it was against Rule 111 of Election Rules. Hence the petition may be dismissed. 7. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in Election O.P.No.306 of 2006, after going through the evidence and other materials on record, has allowed Election Petition declaring the election of the present petitioner as invalid and directed the authorities concerned to conduct the election afresh for the Chairmanship. In Election.O.P.No.4 of 2007, he has allowed the petition by declaring that the declaration of the first respondent that the petitioner in E.O.P.No.4 of 2007 Tmt. M. Bagyalakshmis vote exercised on 210. 2006 as invalid is not correct. It is further directed that the first respondent shall take steps to conduct re-election as per rules. 8. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as Tmt. Bagyalakshmi has exercised her right in a wrong manner by putting the 2 mark by blue ink, which is violative of Rule 107 of the Election Rules and the evidence available in this proceedings would show that the first respondent gave instructions as required by law and inspite of which Tmt. Bagyalakshmi voted with blue ink and that there is no allegation to the effect that the petitioner succeeded by adopting deceitful means. 9. Conversely, Mr. P.H. Manoj Pandian, learned counsel for the second respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3137 of 2008 and third respondent in C.R.P. (NPD) No.3138 of 2008 Mr. M. Rajendran, would argue that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, that the first respondent has not informed the members to put 2 mark with red ink which vitiates all the election process and there is no need to interfere with the above said order. In order to have an indepth study the matter, it is advantageous to extract Election Rules 107 and 111 (f) and (g) which are as follows: 107. Voting Procedure: Every Member shall, on receiving the ballot paper, proceed to the voting compartment the purpose of recording his vote or votes and put a mark on it with the help of the instrument provided for this purpose by the Returning Officer, on the ballot paper against the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he wishes to vote. He shall, before quitting the voting compartment fold up the ballot paper so as to conceal the mark and put the ballot paper so folded, into the ballot box in the presence of the Returning Officer. 111. Invalid ballot papers: A ballot paper shall be invalid .... .... ..... .... .(f) If any mark is made by which the member may afterwards be identified; or .(g) if the mark has been made by any instrument other than the one provided for this purpose under Rule 107." 10. The above said rules have to be read in juxta position with the guidelines to be observed by the Returning Officers, in which para 10.5 is relevant, which is extracted as under in vernacular language: 11. It is incumbent upon the Returning Officer to provide red sketch pen or red pencil to the members and the next part of the above said guidelines goes to the effect that in order to ensure the confidentiality in maintaining uniformity, he has to instruct that 2 mark should be assigned. .12. As far as the provision of red sketch pen is concerned, it has been candidly shown that in the place of polling, behind the screen where the members, to put their marks on the ballot papers, a sketch pen was kept by the first respondent. P.W.1 Rajendran would say that he placed 2 mark with the pen given by the Returning Officer. But Mrs. Bagyalakshmi has stated that the Returning Officer gave the ballot paper and blue ink pen to her. In the cross examination, she has further stated that she could not identify the person who gave the blue ink pen. R.W.1, first respondent, since retired, has deposed that he gave instructions to the members as per rules and that he provided red sketch pen in the place of polling. Worthwhile it is to note that all the 17 members out of 18 members set down 2 mark with the red sketch pen and Mrs. Bagyalakshmi alone with blue ink pen. Her version that first respondent gave the blue ink pen is falsified by the evidence of P.W.1. 13. Further, the C.D., Ex.C.1, on display would show that the red sketch pen was kept in the place of polling. It is to be noted that nobody else could see a member putting 2 mark in the ballot paper and it is secret polling. 13. Further, the C.D., Ex.C.1, on display would show that the red sketch pen was kept in the place of polling. It is to be noted that nobody else could see a member putting 2 mark in the ballot paper and it is secret polling. The C.D. shows preparation to deposit the red sketch pen in the place of polling as well as saying of one person referring the placement of red sketch pen there as "ngdh m;f ,Uf;F" (Pen is there). The cumulative effect of the above said circumstances would go a long way to show that the first respondent had provided red sketch pen in the place of polling, by means of which 17 members laid 2 mark in the ballot papers. 14. As regards the instruction given by the first respondent, before the members started polling, the C.D. shows, he explained holding a blank ballot paper and informing the members to fix 2 mark against the name for whom a member desired to vote. Even though he does not appear to have instructed the members specifically that they had to put 2 mark with red sketch pen, still, all the members have utilized the red sketch pen kept in the place of polling. Worthwhile it is to notice that before polling, started the Returning Officer opened the empty ballot box and showed it to the members and after that in the presence of members he arranged the red sketch pen to be kept in the place of polling. It indicates that sufficient information was conveyed to the members that the members should utilize red sketch pen to affix 2 mark in the ballot papers. .15. There is no corresponding rules identical to Part 10.5 of the guidelines in the Election Rules. Rule 107 provides that a member shall put a mark on the ballot paper with the help of instrument provided for that purpose by the Returning Officer, against the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. The first respondent has complied with the statutory obligation contained in the said rule by providing the instrument, the red sketch pen. Excepting Rule 107, no rule provides for the procedure to be adopted by the Returning Officer in the matter of providing the instrument for marking. The first respondent has complied with the statutory obligation contained in the said rule by providing the instrument, the red sketch pen. Excepting Rule 107, no rule provides for the procedure to be adopted by the Returning Officer in the matter of providing the instrument for marking. If this provision is read in consonance with Rule 111 (f) and (g), the Returning Officer will have no other option except to declare the ballot paper invalid for the reasons that Tmt. Bagyalakshmi had identified herself after the polling and also that her ballot paper was marked with instrument other than the one provided for the purpose under Rule 107 of Election Rules. .16. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477 [Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others] in which, the manner of discharging of statutory function by the authorities concerned has been restated. The operative portion of the Judgment goes thus: ."It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view, the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague." 17. It is the mandate from the Supreme Court that when a statute prescribes a specific function or obligation to be discharged by an authority, it has to discharge the same as directed by the statute and the said authority has to ensure that it is carried out in letter of spirit in accordance with law. While these principles are applied to the facts of the present case as per Rule 107, the first respondent has discharged his function by providing red sketch pen in the site of polling. .18. It is contended that the first respondent had failed to give instructions with regard to usage of the red sketch pen for putting 2 mark, and there could be no consideration as per Rule 111 (g). Still, Rule 111(f) would come into operation invalidating the ballot paper used by Tmt. Bagyalakshmi. In her Election Petition she has alleged that she gave her written objection to the first respondent on 210. Still, Rule 111(f) would come into operation invalidating the ballot paper used by Tmt. Bagyalakshmi. In her Election Petition she has alleged that she gave her written objection to the first respondent on 210. 2006 itself i.e., on the date of the polling, objecting the declaration that the ballot paper with 2 mark by blue ink was invalid. On 30.10.2006 also she sent a written objection to the first respondent and the District Collector. 19. In the above said written objections, she has stated that she has put 2 mark by blue ink. This circumstance would amply shoe that she identified herself that she had consigned the 2 mark by blue ink. It is her attitude, which attracts Rule 111(f), which would invalidate her ballot paper. 20. Above said inferences out of the conspectus of the materials available in this case, would establish the fact that the declaration by the first respondent what the ballot paper containing 2 mark by blue ink as invalid, is in accordance with Election Rules. This court is of the considered view that interference with the observations and findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is inevitable, and they have to be dislodged resulting in setting aside the order passed in both Election Petitions. The election of the petitioner could not be declared invalid and improper in view of the Election Rules 107 and 111. The petitions deserved to be allowed. 21. In fine both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the common Order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Election O.P.Nos.306 of 2006 and 4 of 2007 on 28.08.2006. Connected M.Ps. are closed.