The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'corrupt practice' under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and its application to the petitioner's failure to disclose assets in the nomination form.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.10.2022, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, in Election O.P. No. 20 of 2020. Election O.P. No. 20 of 2020 was filed by the first respondent herein as voter seeking to countermand and declare the election of the petitioner as null and void.

2. By the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 the learned Principal District Judge, Karur has allowed Election O.P. No. 20 of 2020, filed by the first respondent seeking to declare the election of the petitioner as null and void with the following observations:

“The contention raised by the 1st respondent that the failure to disclose her assets in the nomination form is not a willful one and it was happened accidently and negligently. The above said contention cannot be accepted in view of the law declined by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another. Therefore, the petitioner has established that the petitioner being a voter in ward No. 5 of Thirukattuthurai Village Panchayat of Karur Union is entitled to know about the assets of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this Court is of firm opinion that the failure to disclose the assets of the 1st respondent is amounts to undue influence and consequently to corrupt practice. Therefore, in fine, the petitioner has established the case against the 1st respondent. Hence, the point No. 1 is answered accordingly.”

3. The petitioner herein had contested to the post of 5th Ward Councilor of Thirukattuthurai Village Panchayat of Karur Union. The petitioner had filed her nomination on 14.12.2019. No other nominations were received. Therefore, the petitioner was elected unopposed and the results were declared on 02.01.2020.

4. After the petitioner was declared as the 5th Ward Councilor of Thirukattuthurai Village Panchayat, Karur Union, the first respondent herein filed Election O.P. No. 20 of 2020 stating that the petitioner had resorted to corrupt practices. Specifically, it was averred that the petitioner had made incorrect declaration in the nomination filed on 14.12.2019.

5. Specifically, it was stated that the petitioner had failed to give the particulars of the property purchased by her on 26.02.2014, which attracted Section 259(b) and (d) (i) and (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, has failed to note that the petitioner has not resorted to any corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

7. That apart, it is submitted that the failure to declare the details of the property purchased by the petitioner on 26.02.2014 was inadvertent and did not amount to any corrupt practice.

8. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, was liable to be interfered with in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Per contra, the first respondent election petitioner, party-in-person submits that the impugned order was well reasoned. It did not call for any interference. That apart, it is submitted that the failure to declare the correct details and giving improper particulars in the nomination filed on 14.12.2019 goes to the very root of the nomination. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had indeed resorted to corrupt practice. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

10. It is further submitted that the petitioner had indulged in corrupt practices as the petitioner had not given the correct particulars of the property acquired in her nomination and therefore, the election of the petitioner was liable to be declared as null and void and hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

11. I have considered the argu