Selvi.J.Jayalalitha, the respondent No.1 is an elected candidate in the Elections held from R.K. Nagar Constituency to the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly. Her election had been called in question before this Court by the petitioner, who was one of the candidates, who filed the nomination papers before the 31st respondent, for election in the same constituency, along with the Affidavit in Form-26, before the Returning Officer on 08.06.2015. The nomination was rejected by the 31st respondent, as defective, by his order dated 11.06.2015.

2. The brief material facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be a Social Activist, doing social work for the welfare of the public for a couple of years in his locality. As he decides to service the public, he wanted to contest in the bye election conducted in R.K. Nagar Constituency on 27.06.2015. Hence, he filed nomination as an independent candidate in the Election and the nomination papers were filed before the 31st respondent, on 08.06.2015. The petitioner also had filed the affidavit as required under Form-26.

3. As per the procedure to participate in the Assembly Election, an independent candidate should get a minimum of 10 persons in the Constituency to propose his candidature and they must be eligible for voting in that Constituency.

4. Accordingly, 10 persons had proposed the name of the Election petitioner. All other requirements such as payment of security, Oath of Election, as per the Rules and certified by the respondent No.31 were all proper. The verification of the nomination papers was done on 11.06.2015. However, on the same day, the nomination papers of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there were no 10 proposers as per Section 33 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

5. The petitioner has alleged that he was not aware of the basis of the rejection of his nomination papers. Hence, he filed W.P. No. 17837 of 2015 against the 31st respondent, for certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 31st respondent, made in proceedings Ma.A.4.Na.Ka.No.Election/4550/2015 dated 11.06.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accept the nomination papers of the petitioner for R.K. Nagar Constituency, Chennai, for the bye election to be held on 27.06.2015. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 23.06.2015, as Article 329 of the Constitution of India bars interference by this Court with the Election process, once it is commenced. Thereafter, the Election Petitioner has filed the above petition, challenging the rejection of his nomination and consequently declaring the Election of the returned candidate, as null and void.

6. The petitioner has stated in the petition that in his attempt to know the reasons for rejection of his nomination, one of the Office employee, by name Dhanalakshmi, verified in the office computer on 08.06.2015 and orally informed the petitioner that one of the proposers namely Vignesh's (Part No.43 Serial No.42) address was wrongly mentioned in the proposer's voter ID. The mistake was that instead of 'Illaya Mudali Street', it was mentioned as 'Illaya Mudal Street'. It was also stated that the proposer No.2, Vignesh had already submitted his correction form, an year back, before the 31st respondent. The 31st respondent issued the R.K. Nagar final voter list on 15.10.2014. However, the second proposer Vignesh's name was deleted in the final voter list of Part No.43 in Serial No.42. It is also alleged that the said proposer Vignesh had voted in the bye election of R.K. Nagar already on 27.06.2015 in the Thiyagaraya College Polling Station, which has also been covered and recorded in the C.C.T.V. Camera. Hence, the petitioner alleges that the proposer Vignesh is an eligible candidate and therefore, his return of the nomination papers on that ground is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

7. Notice was ordered to be issued to all the respondents including the returned candid