1. O.A.No.94 and 95 of 2017 have been filed by the applicant, who is the 1st respondent the Election Petition, seeking to strike off paragraphs 9, 10, 11(a) to 11(m), 12 to 32 in the Election Petition and also to reject the Election Petition No.3 of 2016.

2. Election Petition No.3 of 2016 has been filed by the respondent herein against the applicant and 23 others, inter alia, seeking the following relief’s:

i. declare the election of the applicant to No.006 Avadi Assembly Constituency in Tamil Nadu on 19.5.2016 as illegal and void.

ii. declare the respondent as being elected to the No.006 Avadi Assembly Constituency in Tamil Nadu.

iii. direct the applicant to pay the cost of the petition to the respondent.

3.1. Succinctly put, the case of the applicant is as under:

The applicant was duly elected through a fair and proper electoral process by the people of Avadi constituency under Two Leaves Symbol. The respondent having lost the election has made vague and unsubstantiated allegations on the basis of entirely unacceptable source of information, thrown wild and imaginary statements in the Election Petition. The Election Petition filed challenging an election based on the alleged corrupt practices has to be treated as if it is a quasi-criminal matter and the charge of corrupt practices has to be so very specific and it should have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the elected candidate had indulged in corrupt practices. The Election Petition does not disclose any such specific charge that will require this Court to deal with. The applicant's past political dispensation does not in any way amount to a corrupt practice and the allegations have been made only with the object of prejudicing, embarrassing and delaying a fair trial.

3.2. It is alleged that the entire allegations stated in paragraph 10 of the Election Petition requires to be struck off, as the same were wholly unsubstantiated. The applicant had submitted true and correct account of expenses incurred to the District Election Officer as required by law. Moreover, the allegations in paragraph 11(a) to 11(m) of the Election Petition are a figment of imagination, without any material particulars. The allegation of bribery of Rs.500/- per voter for 1,50,000 voters was a figment of the respondent's fertile imagination and is liable to be rejected.

3.3. It is alleged that the respondent himself was unsure of what he was alleging. On one hand, he has made reference to some Whatsapp message purportedly issued by the applicant and the source of such message was not known. Further, who sent the Whatsapp message and where it originated was not known. The allegations in paragraphs 13 and 14 were vexatious and frivolous allegations and do not disclose any cause of action. It was further alleged that there was not a single specific allegation that the applicant had on a particular day instructed any specific person to distribute cash to induce voters or that the applicant had handed over cash to induce voters except for reference to such actions having taken place in various locations by various unknown persons.

3.4. According to the applicant, he had not misused the State machinery in any way. There was absolutely no cause shown in the Election Petition. The allegations levelled in paragraphs 19 to 27 were against the Returning Officer. According to the applicant, the election process was conducted in a fair and proper manner. Results were duly announced after a fair process and the respondent was trying to indulge in mud-slinging against the officers of the Election Commission of India. The allegations in paragraphs 28 to 32 were misleading and were false. According to the applicant, a complete reading of the Election Petition would show that the respondent was unable to make out any specific case as against the applicant qua indulgence in any form of corrupt practice. Vague statements have been thrown left right and centre without any material particulars. According to the app