IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.2.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.(MD).NO.2951 OF 2022 &

W.M.P.(MD) NOS.2584 & 2585 OF 2022

R.Prakash

.. Petitioner

vs

1. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) &

Principal Secretary to Government

Public (Elections) Department

Secretariat, Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Electoral Officer &

The District Collector

Thanjavur District, Thanjavur 613 010.

3. The Electoral Officer & Commissioner

Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation

Kumbakonam 612 001.

4. The Asst. Electoral Officer No.2 &

The Town Health Officer

Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation

Kumbakonam 612 011.

.. Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of

India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the records of the Original Application

dated 04.02.2022 of this writ petitioner submitted on the file

of the 4th respondent Assistant Election Officer No.2,

Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation herein as deemed to be accepted

of the application of this writ petitioner as said above and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

quash the same in respect of the oral order dated 04.02.2022

informing of the rejection of the application submitted by this

writ petitioner for contesting for the Councilor Post for ward

12 of the Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation issued by the 4th

respondent herein.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Mr.G.Ravi Sankar

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Sivashamugam,

Standing Counsel for R1

Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram,

Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.P.Muthukumar

State Government Pleader

for R2 to R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by

the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the

rejection of nomination submitted by the petitioner to contest

to the post of councilor for ward No.12 of Kumbakonam Municipal

Corporation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that pursuant to the Notification of election dated 28.1.2022,

the petitioner submitted his nomination to the Returning Officer

on 04.2.2022 complete in all respects. The acknowledgment was

also received by the petitioner on 05.2.2022. However, his

nomination was rejected, ignoring the provisions of the Tamil

Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities

and Corporations (Elections) Rules 2006 (for short, the Rules of

2006) for curing the defects in the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

rejection of nomination has been made arbitrarily and while

doing so, even the provisions of Rule 26(4) of the Rules of 2006

were not complied. The Returning Officer was even under an

obligation to inform the person presenting the same about the

date, time and place fixed for the scrutiny of nominations and

shall enter on the nomination paper its serial number and shall

sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

hour at which the nomination paper has been presented to him.

But, the Returning Officer failed to comply with even Rule 26(2)

of the Rules of 2006.

5. In view of the above, the cancellation of the nomination,

which was complete in all respects and in the absence of

compliance of the Rules of 2006, the act of the Returning

Officer has become illegal. If the form attached to the

nomination form was having any discrepancy, it should have been

cured after calling for the petitioner to do the needful, as the

same is permissible under the Rules of 2006. The failure of the

Returning Officer in not adhering to the mandate of the Rules of

2006 led to the challenge to the rejection of nomination.

6. We have