The nomination of a candidate cannot be rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that there was no full and complete disclosure, but the election can be set aside by the Election Tribunal on that score.

1. The petitioner herein was elected as the President of Thekkampatti Panchayat, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, in the elections held on 110. 2006. Challenging his election on the sole ground that he filed a false declaration suppressing details of the criminal cases pending trial against him and that therefore his nomination ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer, the first respondent herein filed Election O.P.No.296 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. It was allowed by the learned District Judge, declaring the election of the petitioner herein as null and void and directing a fresh election to be conducted. Challenging the said order upsetting his election, the petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mrs.Shanthi Rakkappan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 6 to 9. It is seen from paragraph-4 of the order of the District Judge (under revision) that the other respondents remained ex parte in the Court below and hence notice to them is dispensed with.

3. In brief, the dispute on hand arises under the following circumstances:-

(a) In exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 243-K and 243 -ZA of the Constitution, read with the relevant provisions of the various State enactments dealing with local bodies, the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission issued a Notification bearing S.O.No.43/2006/TNSEC/EG dated 9. 2006. It was issued in supersession of an earlier Notification dated 30.7.1998.

(b) As per the Notification dated 9. 2006, every candidate desiring to contest an election to a local body, was required to furnish full and complete information, in regard to five matters referred to in paragraph 5 of the preamble to the Notification, at the time of filing his nomination paper. The information should be furnished in the form of an affidavit or declaration, as per the format annexed to the Notification.

(c) One of the five matters referred to in paragraph-5 of the preamble, about which a disclosure was made mandatory, was as to whether the candidate was accused, in any pending case, prior to six months of filing of the nomination, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more and in which, charges have been framed or cognizance taken by a Court of Law.

(d) Previously, the petitioner herein was the President of a Cooperative Society. On allegations of criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts etc., a complaint came to be lodged against him and others in Crime No.10 of 2001. After investigation, the Police laid 8 different charge sheets, in C.C.Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore and the Magistrate took cognizance, much before the election Notification. On the date of the petitioner filing the nomination, these criminal cases were pending trial. It is not in dispute that charges were framed and cognizance taken in those 8 cases, for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 408 and 477-A, IPC. Therefore there is no dispute that on the date of filing of the nomination, the petitioner was accused of offences punishable with imprisonment for 2 years and more and that his case was covered by the mandatory requirement to furnish information in terms of paragraph-5 of the preamble read with the operative portion of the Notification of the State Election Commission dated 9. 2006.

(e) The petitioner in fact filed a declaration in the Form prescribed under the Notification, along with his nomination. But in the declaration and the affidavit, the petitioner merely mentioned Crime No.10 of 2001 and did not mention the details of the charge sheets filed against him, which were pending trial.

(f) Therefore, contending that th