O R D E R

This application, has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), to reject the Election Petition in E.L.P.No.12 of 2021. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Election Petition.

2. This application has been filed by the fourth respondent / returned candidate, from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency.

3. The election petitioner claiming herself as an eligible elector from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency, has filed this election petition, (i) to declare the acceptance of nomination of the fourth respondent, namely the petitioner in O.A.No.40 of 2022, to the Chepauk -

Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency, is not in accordance with law, illegal and consequently the result declared is null and void and (ii) to declare the election held in Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni constituency is of undue influence and not free and fair election.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the election petition is that, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and also a voter in the above said Assembly Constituency. In the General Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held in April, 2021, the fourth respondent contested the election from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency as the official candidate of the Dravida Munnerta Kazhagam (in short 'DMK') and he was declared elected.

5. According to the election petitioner, the fourth respondent while filing his nomination, filed Form 26, under Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). In the above said affidavit, in Column No.5(ii), which requires information regarding criminal case details, the fourth respondent has stated that he filed the details in Annexure-I. In the said Annexure-I, he has mentioned 22 criminal cases pending against him. However he has stated 'Nil' in Columns 3 and 4 in Para

5(ii) in Form 26. In Column (d), which requires particulars regarding brief description of the offence, the fourth respondent simply stated that the cases were filed for violation of law during political agitations for public.

6. According to the election petitioner, all the 22 cases, were registered against the fourth respondent for various offences, however he suppressed the same and simply stated that the cases were filed for violation of law during political agitation for public, which is a false statement, misleads the voters and deprives the voters right to information.

7. Further according to the election petitioner, Sub-Clause (i) of Section 33(A)(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') requires effectuate information in cases where cognizance were taken should be comprehended within the area of information accessible to the voters and the fourth respondent deliberately filed a false affidavit to influence the voters.

8. That apart, the fourth respondent has furnished incorrect and false information in the affidavit and non-disclosure of material information amounts to violation of the Act and the Rules therein. Since there is false disclosure on the part of the fourth respondent, which amounts to undue influence and therefore the election has to be declared as null and void as per Section 100(1)(a), 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

9. That apart, one Mr.J.V.Mohanakrishnan, who was appointed as the Presiding Officer in Zonal Party No.2 was associated with the fourth respondent and his political party and he has also written a book regarding the party to which the fourth respondent belongs. That apart, he was teacher to the spouse of the fourth respondent. This officer misused/influenced the voters and get polled to their affiliation in collusion with the booth agents appointed by these political parties. He was under control of 10 polling booths at Chintadripet and he influenced