Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 927
2011 (6) MLJ 684
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Kumar. P
Versus
Sarubala R.Thondaiman & Others
Application No.6569 of 2009 in Election Petition No.4 of 2009
Decided on : 23-02-2011
For the Applicant:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - R. Gandhi, SC for S. Thiruvenkataswamy, Advocate, R24 - M. Raghavan, Standing Counsel, R2 to R23 - No appearance.
Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - STRIKING OFF - MATERIAL FACTS - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - VAGUE ALLEGATIONS - ELECTION PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The election petition was filed by the first respondent challenging the election of the applicant as the successful candidate for the Tiruchirappalli Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner alleged that there were various discrepancies in the manner of announcing votes polled for respective candidates, that mandatory requirement for the voters to cast their votes in terms of Rule 49(O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was not complied with, that in the assembly segments of Pudukkottai and Kandarvakottai, large number of voters were allowed to enter into the polling station without stopping them at the stage of obtaining their first signature in the register of voters in Form-17A, that the accounts of votes recorded and Form 17-C prepared in this regard did not reflect about the number of voters who exercised rule 49(O) option, that around 13434 voters from all six assembly segments had refused to exercise their franchise and availed the option under Rule 49(O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, but, in allowing them to exercise the option under Rule 49(O), the polling officers have breached their statutory duties, that 15200 voters who have exercised their option under Rule 49(O), neither made any second signature nor made proper endorsement, that the guidelines issued by the Election Commission is mandatory as they were issued in terms of the power vested under the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, that the LCD flashing figures showed higher number of votes in favour of the petitioner, that 10500 votes have been wrongly calculated and accepted in favour of the applicant, that the Election Commission had also sent a circular letter, dated 8.4.2009 informing that in order to identify the voters, the voters will have to produce any one of 13 documents set out therein, despite the same, about 32000 voters in all six assembly constituencies were denied the right to exercise their franchise, even though their names were found in the electoral list only because they had produced Family Ration Card for identity purpose, that the applicant had spent more than two crores by organizing meetings, putting up a huge dais, installing flash lights, putting up huge cutouts of their party leaders, that ever since filing of his nomination, he was lavishly spending money exceeding the election expenditure prescribed under Section 77 of the Representative of People Act and Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, that the applicant had filed false accounts with the District Election Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made by the petitioner were too vague and did not stand the scrutiny of the Court. The court also found that the petitioner had not specified for any trial in terms of enquiry into the violation of either Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv) or Section 129 of the Representation of the People Act or election is vitiated because of violation of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv) read with Section 129 of the Act. The election petition was too vague even to be tested in a proper trial.
Issues: Whether the election petition should be struck off for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and for being vague and not disclosing material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election petition was liable to be struck off as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires the election petitioner to state the material facts on which he relies. The court also held that the allegations made by the petitioner were too vague and did not stand the scrutiny of the Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application filed by the applicant and struck off the election petition from the election petition register of the court with cost quantified at Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the applicant/first respondent in the election petition by the original Election Petitioner.
1. This is an application filed by the first respondent in the Election Petition (ELP No.4/2009) under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. Election Petition No.4 of 2009 was presented by the first respondent in this application under Section 81 read with S.100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) and Section 129 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (for short RP Act). The petition was presented on 29.6.2009. Thereafter, the matter was assigned to this court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The matter pertains to the challenge made to the election of the present applicant (who is the first respondent in the election petition) as the successful candidate for the Tiruchirappalli Parlimentary Constituency (No.24).
2. Originally orders were reserved on 26.2.2010. Subsequently, it was posted on 11.2.2011 for further clarification. After getting certain points clarified, it was reserved for orders.
3. It is an admitted case of both parties that the Election Commission had issued a notification on 17.4.2009 notifying the schedule of election for constituting 15th House of People (Lok Sabha). As per the poll schedule announced, the nomination of candidates was to be made on 24.4.2009. The scrutiny of nominations was to be done on 25.4.2009 and the last date for withdrawal of nominations was on 7.5.2009. The date of polling for electing the candidates for the house of people (Lok Sabha) was fixed on 13.5.2009. Casting of votes as well as declaration of results was notified to take place on 16.5.2009.
4. It is the case of the original election petitioner (first respondent herein) that she had filed her nomination as an official candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress Party. She stood in the election with the notified "Hand" symbol. The present applicant, the first respondent in the election petition, who stood as an official candidate of AIADMK Party with the symbol "Two leaves" also filed his nomination. The other respondents 2 to 23 have also filed their nominations and contested either as candidates of recognized political parties or as independent candidates. Before filing her nomination, the original election petitioner was holding the post of Mayor of Tiruchirappalli Corporation. After resigning from the post, she had filed her nomination.
5. The Tiruchirappalli Parliamentary Constituency comprises of six assembly segments, i.e. Srirangam Assembly (139), Tiruchirappalli West Assembly (140), Tiruchirappalli East Assembly (141), Tiruverumbur Assembly segment (142), Kandarvakottai (Reserved assembly segment-178) and Pudukkottai Assembly segment (180). The first respondent originally appointed one T.A.Omprakash as her Chief Election Agent. In respect of each assembly segments, she had nominated 14 persons as counting agents. Polling took place for the constituency on 13.5.2009. The counting of votes took place in the premises of the Jamal Mohammed College at Tiruchirappalli in the presence of 24th respondent Returning Officer as well as Assistant Returning Officer and other Election officials. Though the first respondent was not present during the counting process, her Chief Election Agent and other counting agents were present inside the hall where the counting took place on 16.5.2009. It was her understanding that counting of votes took place in various rooms inside the college premises as per the assembly segmentwise. It was also alleged that after counting, the 24th respondent Returning Officer had declared that the present applicant (R-1 in the election petition) as having been successfully elected as a Member of Parliament. His winning margin was announced as 4335 votes.
6. It is on the basis of these admitted facts, the first respondent in her original election petition alleged that as per Form-20 prepared for each assembly constituency, she was leading in all the constituencies except for the Srirangam Assembly Constituency. In that Constituency, the first respondent got only 50767 votes, wher
