IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS RESERVED ON : 01.09.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.10.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA O.A.No.8 of 2022 in Election Petition No.9 of 2021 Ashok Kumar.K ... Applicant Vs.

1.T.Senguttuvan

2.Chandramohan.K.M

3.Tamilselvan.S.

4.Ameenulla

5.Sasikumar.K.S.

6.Nirandari.V. 7.Ravishankar

8.Ruthramani.T

9.Vijayakumar.R

10.TVS.Gandhi

11.Kumaresan.M

12.Gopinath.M.

13.Sakthi.K

14.Sivan.C

15.The Election Commission of India Represented by its Chief Election Commissioner Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001.

16.The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu Election Commission of India Public (Elections) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

17.The District Collector cum District Returning Officer, District Collector Office, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu – 635 001.

18.The Returning Officer

53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency, Krishnagiri Taluk Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu – 635 122.

19.G.Karpagavalli …Respondents Prayer: Judges Summon filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reject the petition bearing number Election Petition No.9 of 2021 filed under Section 80 of Representation of Peoples Act before this Court.

For Applicant : Mr.V.Ayyathurai Senior Counsel For Respondent 1 : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Associates

ORDER

The 1^st respondent in an Election Petition has filed the above application to reject the Election Petition.

2. Before proceeding to consider the rejection application, it would be necessary to briefly set out the facts that had culminated in the filing of the Election Petition. The 1^st respondent herein belongs to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and had contested in the General Election to the legislative assembly that was held on 06.04.2021. The applicant herein had also contested the said election and he was declared elected by a margin of 794 votes. The applicant herein had in all secured 96,050 votes. The 1^st respondent herein came second with a total of 95,256 votes.

3. Aggrieved by the facts that certain anomalies and corrupt practices had taken place, the 1^st respondent had come forward with the instant Election Petition to declare the election of the applicant herein to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and to set aside the same and declare the

1^st respondent herein as duly elected to the said constituency.

4. The election has been challenged on the grounds, which are set out herein below:

(a)Suppression in the Form 26 affidavit filed by the applicant, as the details of all the properties of the applicant had not been set out.

(b)Distribution of cash for votes.

(c)Usage of the Official machinery for securing maximum votes.

(d)Exceeded the maximum election expenditure.

(e)Plastering of walls of public properties with the symbol of the party, to which the applicant belonged.

(f)The improper rejection of postal ballot votes.

(g)Deficiency and irregularities in counting of votes in the EVMs.

5. The 1^st respondent had entered appearance in the above petition and on 13.12.2021, he has filed an application to reject the Election Petition. The grounds on which the said application has been filed are as follows:

(i)Order IV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with since the affidavit contemplated therein has not been filed and to add to the procedural anomalies the duplicate copy of the election petition was also not filed into Court.

(ii)The election petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951, herein after called the RP Act, and the Election Petition is barred by limitation. The applicant would contend that the election results have been declared on 03.05.2021 and therefore the petition ought to have been filed on or before 17.06.2021, whereas, the Election Petition has been filed only on 30.06.2021, beyond the period of 45 days contemplated under Sec