1. This Application has been filed, praying to substitute the applicant A. Lazar as Petitioner in place of the deceased Petitioner late P. Mohan and continue the proceedings in the above Election Petition.

2. The case of the applicant is as follows:

2.1 He was the alternative candidate selected by the recognized political party CPI(M) along with P. Mohan for No.32, Madurai Parliamentary Constituency in the 15th Lok Sabha Election held in the year 2009. P. Mohan submitted his nomination. Applicant also submitted his nomination as the alternative candidate. Since the nomination of P. Mohan had been accepted, the applicant withdrew his nomination within the date fixed for withdrawal of nomination. He is interested in the outcome of the Election Petition. He is also aggrieved over the declaration, declaring the first Respondent as the returned candidate in the election in question forming subject matter of the Election Petition. He is ready and willing to continue the Election Petition substituting himself in the place of late P. Mohan, who died on 30.10.2009, based on the allegations and grounds raised in the Election Petition. He is entitled to substitute himself in place of the deceased sole Petitioner in the Election Petition and continue the proceedings as per Section 112 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, “the Act”)

2.2 He is an elector of 32, Madurai Parliamentary Constituency. He saw the paper publication in “The Hindu” daily Madurai Edition, dated 14.12.2009, publishing the factum of demise of the Election Petitioner. He is filing this Application within 14 days from the date of publication as contemplated under Section 112(3) of the Act.

2.3 Late P. Mohan has already furnished security as peer Section 117(1) of the Act. He is ready and willing to abide by any orders passed by this `Court under Section 112(3) of the Act, including depositing of another sum of Rs. 2,000/-, if directed. Hence, this application.

3. First Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, stating as follows:

3.1 Petitioner is not entitled to continue the proceedings on the basis of the amount deposited by late P. Mohan, the Election Petitioner, and he has no locus standi to take out this application to substitute himself in place of the deceased P. Mohan. The moment the applicant withdrew his nomination and he has not participated in the election, he is not entitled to challenges the order of the Returning Officer, declaring him (First Respondent) as the successful candidate. Further, the provision contemplated under Section 112 (3) of the Act does not in any way include the candidates who have withdrawn their nomination papers. It would only accommodate the persons, who have actually contested the election. Not having contested the election, the applicant cannot substitute himself as the applicant in place of the deceased P. Mohan. Also, having quit the election at the threshold itself, the applicant is not entitled to maintain the present Application for substitution on the ground raised by the deceased P. Mohan. The applicant has not made out any ground in the Affidavit to show that apart from being an alternative nominee, the precise fact that would entitle him to substitute himself as Petitioner and continue the proceedings.

3.2 The application for substitution cannot be maintained at the instance of the applicant as the original Petitioner-P. Mohan (deceased) had filed the Election Petition on his alleged personal information and on the information allegedly furnished to him by others. The applicant, who seeks to substitute himself, cannot proceed with the same, as he does not have any personal information on the allegation.

4. Fifth Respondent has filed a counter stating as follows:

4.1. Once a person has withdrawn his nomination, he cannot claim that he is aggrieved of the result declared by the twelfth Respondent. The application is in no way connected to the proceedings and he is a stranger. If he wants to ch