In this election petition, the petitioner/defeated candidate questions the election of the second respondent in the general elections held for the 13th Lok Sabha, for Chidambaram (S.C. Parliamentary Constituency).

2. The Election Commissioner of India on 11.7.1999 announced the schedule of election as follows:-

Date of commencement of final nomination 11.8.1999.

Last date for filing nomination 18.8.1999.

Date of agreeing of nomination 19.8.1999.

Last date for withdrawal 21.8.1999

Date of polling 5.9.1999.

3. The petitioner being the convenor of Dalit Panthers of India contested the elections with the alliance of Tamil Manila Congress in Cycle symbol. He filed his nomination on 18.8.1999 for contesting in Chidambaram (SC Parliamentary Constituency), before the 6th respondent. The respondents 1 to 5 also filed their nominations. The second respondent was set up by Pattali Makkal Katchi (P.M.K.). After scrutiny of nominations, six candidates were declared as contestants.

4. After elections, counting of votes commenced on 6.10.1999 and the second respondent was declared as successful candidate for the Parliamentary Constituency. The respective candidates were declared to have secured the following votes:-

1. Sampath Udhayakumar 1,50,794

2. Thirumavalavan (Petitioner) 2,25,768

3. Ponnusamy (second respondent) 3,45,331

4. Kanagasabai 422

5. Kamaraj 384

6. Muruganandham 1,606

Total valid votes 7,24,305

Total votes polled 7,32,994

Total rejected votes 8,689

Total valid votes 7,24,305

5. The petitioner submits that the election to the said Constituency has to be declared as void as the result of the election having been materially affected on account of various material irregularities alleged to have been committed by the second respondent. He also alleges non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, hereinafter called the Act, the Conduct of Election Rules, the instructions given to the Returning Officers and the guidelines issued to the candidates. The hand book to the Returning Officers as well as candidates have been issued under authority of law by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner further contends that in terms of the provisions under Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, there shall be an electoral roll for every Constituency, prepared in accordance with the Act Rules. Section 18 provides that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any Constituency more than once. Under Section 19, every person who is ordinarily a resident in the Constituency shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that Constituency. In terms of Section 33 of Representation of People Act, 1951, the requirements for filing nomination papers are stated and under Section 33 (2), procedure for reservation of seats and the qualifications for a candidate are prescribed. In the case of a member claiming to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of the State, a declaration is sought for. The second respondent is a registered voter in Villivakkam Assembly Segment which is one of the segments in the North Madras Parliamentary Constituency. If he is a voter of North Madras Parliamentary Constituency, the law prohibits him from exercising his franchise or casting his vote in any other Constituency. If the voter votes in a different Constituency, he would be guilty of electoral offence punishable under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Indian Penal Code. It is also known fact that a voter cannot exercise his vote in a Constituency other than the one in which he is registered as a voter. It is also further stated that such voting cannot be made without the actual connivance and assistance of the Presiding Officer or the Assistant Presiding Officer. When a Presiding Officer or other electoral staff in charge of a particular booth does something prohibited by law, they would not be discharging the functions enjoined on them, by law. The second respon