Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1566
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
P. Uma Maheswari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M. Balasubramanian & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.476 and 982 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.2093 and 3911 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.3867 of 2022
Decided On : 16-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramesh, Mr. K. Sundaravel.
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Sundaravel, Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. S. Ramesh.
IMPORTANT POINT
Elections can be invalidated due to improper disclosure of candidate assets, but minor errors without intent to mislead may not suffice for disqualification.
Headnote:
Election - Kottakudi Panchayat - Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Sections 258-260 - The court discussed the validity of election nominations and the necessity for accurate disclosure of candidate assets, emphasizing that errors without intent to suppress do not invalidate elections.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the election of a Panchayat President based on alleged improper acceptance of a nomination form, where the candidate failed to disclose certain properties, leading to claims of material irregularity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nomination form was improperly filled, leading to the conclusion that the election was vitiated due to the candidate's failure to disclose all properties, despite the information being available to voters.
Issues: Whether the election of the Panchayat President was valid given the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination form and the failure to disclose all properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while errors in nomination forms can be overlooked if there is no intent to suppress information, the failure to provide complete and accurate details can invalidate an election.
Result: The election of the Panchayat President was declared void, and a re-election was ordered.
ORDER :
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
[PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to reverse and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, in E.L.O.P.No.22 of 2020.
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the observation made in the order in so far as the direction for conduct of re election for the post of Panchayat President of Kottagudi Panchayat alone in the order dated 24.02.2022 in E.L.O.P.No.22 of 2020 before the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram.]
By an order dated 24.02.2022, the learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram, partly allowed the Election O.P.No.22 of 2020, thereby declaring that the Nomination Form submitted by the fourth respondent in the election petition to the post of Kottakudi Panchayat President was improperly accepted and it is invalid and void and consequently, the election of the fouth respondent was declared as invalid and void and the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission was directed to conduct re-election for the post of Kottakudi Panchayat President within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Against the order declaring the election as void, the fouth respondent in the election petition, namely P.Uma Maheswari has filed C.R.P.(MD).No.476 of 2022. As against that portion of the order not granting the further reliefs of recounting the votes again and declaring the petitioner as elected, the petitioner in the election petition M.Balasubramanian has filed C.R.P.(MD).No.982 of 2022. As such, both the civil revision petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In C.R.P(MD).No.476 of 2022, an application is also filed for receipt of additional documents. The same is also dealt with together along with the main civil revision position.
3. P.Uma Maheswari and M.Balasubramanian filed nominations for the elections to the post of President of Kottakudi village Panchayat held on 27.12.2019. At the time of scrutiny of nomination, M.Balasubramanian objected to the acceptance of the nomination of P.Uma Maheswari. However, the objections were overruled and P.Uma Maheshwari's nomination was accepted. Upon counting of the votes polled, P.Uma Maheshwari was declared as elected. Challenging the same, the Election O.P. is filed by M.Balasubramanian under Section 258 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
4. The contention on behalf of M.Balasubramanian, the lost candidate, is that P.Uma Maheswari and her husband had several properties and the pattas are marked as Ex.P6. The particulars of those properties were not mentioned in the forms submitted by the said P.Uma Maheswari along with the nomination form. It is the specific case that in the tabular column prescribed in Form 3 Column 11, the said Uma Maheswari has mentioned that she did not have any ancestral property and in respect of her husband also, she has said 'No' with reference to whether he had any self acquired or ancestral properties. The only properties, which are declared or that the said Uma Maheshwari possessed movable properties worth Rs.7,57,000/- and one self acquired property worth Rs.1,45,000/-. Therefore, the same amounts to material irregularity and willful suppression of information from the voters and thus, the petition is filed to declare the election as void. It is the contention of M.Balasubramanian that the nomination has wrongly been accepted and had the nomination been rejected, he would have been elected.
5. The election OP was resisted by the official respondents as well as by the elected candidate P.Uma Maheswari by filing separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the said Uma Maheswari, it was denied that she omitted to mention any of the properties possessed by herself or her husband. According to her, all the details were properly given and scru
