Rejection of nomination papers would not fall within the category of improper rejection and it would fall under the category of inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error in the name of the candidates or its proposal or any other persons. Therefore, the Returning Officer ought not to have rejected nomination papers submitted by the Writ petitioner.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Ms.J. Shanmugapriyadharsini, a practising advocate, and claiming to be a social worker, has submitted nomination papers as an independent candidate in Perambalur Constituency and was expecting her nomination to be approved. However, on 27.03.2019, during the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the officials stated that among the list of persons who have proposed the name of the petitioner, as a candidate for the election, particulars of Mr.Nallusamy and Mr.Sathiskumar with regard to the Part number and serial number in the voters list were not matching with the records maintained by the Returning Officer, Perambalur Constituency, respondent No.2.

2. According to the petitioner, by referring to the Electoral rolls and online electoral roll the Scrutiny Officer, did not approve the nomination paper. In fact, the particulars of the above-said two persons, including the particulars with regard to part number and serial number in the electoral rolls were filled in the nomination of the petitioner, as per their voters card and electoral rolls given to the booth agent.

3. It is further stated that even the printed electoral rolls and the online electoral rolls available with respondent No.2 did not divulge the same particulars and did not correlate with each other. On the above-said reasons, respondent No.2 rejected the nomination of the petitioner.

4. Though the petitioner sent an objection letter dated 27.03.2019 to the District Election Officer, Perambalur Constituency, explaining that the rejection of the nomination, was erroneous, the same is not considered. Hence, the instant Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to accept nomination submitted by the petitioner and to include the name of the petitioner, in the list of Candidates for the Perambalur Parliament Constituency.

5. On the above-said averments and relying on Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Mr.A.E.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of nomination papers, would not fall within the category of improper rejection and it would fall under the category of inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error in the name of the candidates or its proposal or any other persons. Therefore, the Returning Officer ought not to have rejected nomination papers submitted by the Writ petitioner.

6. Referring to Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with Scrutiny of nominations and in particular to sub-section 4 of Section 36 of the said Act, Mr.A.E.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Returning Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.

7. Thus in the light of the above provisions, averments made and taking this Court through the variance in Electoral rolls, as furnished to the booth agents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prima facie, rejection of the nomination papers submitted by the writ petitioner, is erroneous. The petitioner has been deprived of her right to contest in the general election in Perambalur Constituency, and for the afore-said reasons sought for issuance of a Mandamus.

8. Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that in so far as parliament general elections is concerned, 1576 nomination papers were submitted in the State of Tamil Nadu, out of which, 937 are valid nominations. As of today, 92 nominations have been withdrawn. 845 candidates contest in 40 parliament constituencies, in Tamil Nadu.

9. Referring to Article 329 of the Constitution of India, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, made preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He also placed reliance on the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR (39) 1952 SCC 64