Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

Election Petition No. 23 of 2016

and

O.A. NO 1174 of 2017

and

O.A. No. 926 of 2016.

ELP No. 23 of 2016

R. Venkatesan,

S/o. Rengasamy,

Nethaji Nagar,

Vembakkam,

Chengalpattu,

Kancheepuram District—Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Returning Officer cum

Revenue Divisional Officer,

No. 32, Chengalpattu Assembly Constitutency,

Chengalpattu.

2. S. Ajay,

No. 16, Braminar Street,

65, Palur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

3. R. Kamalakannan,

No. 15, 36th Street,

AVM Avenue,

Virugambakkam, Chennai.

4. D. Murugesan,

6, NVN Street,

Anakaputhur,

Chennai.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

5. M. Varalakshmi,

4/8, Varalakshmi Koil Street,

Aappur, Chengalpattu Taluk.

6. K. Arumugam,

36/36, Maraimalai Panchayat,

Sriperumputhur Road,

Thirukatchur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

7. K. Sancheevinathan,

No. 30, First Railway Gate Street,

Kilampakkam, Urapakkam,

Kanchipuram District.

8. G. Sathishkumar,

No. 159A, Railway Colony,

Chengalpattu.

9. T. Selvaraj,

No. 215, 3rd Street,

M.G.R. Nagar,

Thenpathi Village,

Aathur Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

10. S. Muthamil Selvan,

102, SRM Nagar,

Kattankolathur Post,

Kancheepuram District.

11. S. Kumaran,

8/10, Karpoorchettikulam,

Chengalpattu,

Kancheepuram District.

12. L. Durairaj,

162, TNHB, Koodalur,

Singaperumal Koil Via,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

13. M. Raffee,

5/215, 6th Main Road,

Otteri Extension,

Vandaloor, Chennai.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

14. K. Varalakshmi,

3/76, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Mannivakkam,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

15. P. Veeramani,

Anbagam, Thayar Salai,

Panangattupakkam,

Kolathur Post,

Vandalur via, Chennai.

16. A. Venkatesan,

187, Mettu Street,

Illalur, Thiruporur Taluk,

17. K. Jothi,

4-44, M.R. Radha Road,

Puthuppakkam

Thiruporur Taluk.

18. The Chief Election Commissioner,

Secretariat,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-9.—Respondents.

(Respondents 1 & 18 herein are struck off from the array of respondents in

ELP.No.23 of 2016 as per common order of this Hon’ble Court dated 11.09.2017

made in OA.Nos.369 & 370 of 2017 in ELP.No.23 of 2016)

ELP.No.23 of 2016

Election Petition praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to (1) Declare that

the election held on 16-05-2016 in No.32, Chengalpattu Constituency as null and

void (2) Direct the 18th respondent to conduct a fresh election by fixing a date by

providing sufficient opportunity along with necessary documents in time.

OA.No.926 of 2016

R. Venkatesan,

Son of Rengasamy,

Nethaji Nagear, Vembakkam,

Chengalpattu,

Kachipuram District.—Applicant.

Versus

The Returning Officer cum

Revenue Divisional Officer,

No. 32, Chengalpattu Assembly Constituency,

Chengalpattu.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

2. S. Ajay,

No. 16, Braminar Street,

65, Palur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk

3. R. Kamalakannan,

No. 15, 36th Street,

AVM Avenue,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai.

4. D. Murugesan,

NVN Street,

Anakaputhur,

Chennai.

5. M. Varalakshmi,

No. 4/8, Varalakshmi Koil Street,

Aappur,

Chengalapattu Taluk.

6. K. Arumugam,

No. 36/36, Maraimalai Panchayat,

Sriperumputhur Road,

Thirukatchur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

7. K. Sancheevinathan,

No. 30, First Railway Gate Street,

Kilampakkam,

Urappakkam,

Kanchipuram District.

8. G. Sathishkumar,

No. 159A, Railway Colony,

Chengalpattu.

9. T. Selvaraj,

No. 215, 3rd Street, M.G.R. Nagar,

Thenpathi Village,

Aauthur Post, Chengalpattu Taluk.

10. S. Muthamil Selvan,

102, SRM Nagar,

Kattankolathur Post,

Kancheepuram District.

11. S. Kumaran,

8/10, Karpoorchettikulam,

Chengalpattu,

Kancheepuram District.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

12. L. Durairaj,

162, TNHB Koodalur,

Singaperumal Koil Via,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

13. M. Raffee,

5/215, 6th Main Road,

Otteri Extention,

Vadaloor, Chennai.

14. K. Varalakshmi,

3/76, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Mannivakkam, Chengalpattu Taluk.

15. P. Veeramani,

Anbagam, Thayar Salai,

Panangattupakkam,

Kolathur Post,

Vandalur Via, Chennai.

16. A. Venkatesan,

187, Mettu Street,

Illalur, Thiruporur Taluk.

17. K. Jothi,

4-44, M.,R. Radha Road,

Puthuppakkam,

Thiruporur Taluk.

18. The Chief Election Commissioner,

Secretariat,

Fort St. George,

Chennai-9.—Respondents.

O.A.No. 926 of 2016

The Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit

the petitioner to amend the second line of para 18 of the Election Petition No.23 of

2016 as ‘‘264 votes’’ instead of ‘‘467 votes’’.

O.A.No. 1174 of 2017

M. Varalakshmi,

4/8, Varalakshmi Koil Street,

Aappur, Chengalpattu Taluk.

Kanchipuram District.—Applicant/5th Respondent.

Versus

R. Venkatesan,

Son of Rengasamy,

Nethaji Nagar, Vembakkam,

Chengalpattu,

Kanchipuram District—1st Respondent/Petitioner.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

The Returning Officer cum

Revenue Divisional Officer,

No. 32, Chengalpattu Assembly Constituency,

Chengalpattu.

Ajay,

No. 16, Braminar Street,

65, Palur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

R. Kamalakannan,

No. 15, 36th Street,

AVM Avenue, Virugambakkam,

Chennai.

D. Murugesan,

6, NVN Street,

Anakaputhur,

Chennai—Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 1 to 4.

6. K. Arumugam,

36/36, Maraimalai Panchayat,

Sriperumputhur Road,

Thirukatchur Village & Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

7. K. Sancheevinathan,

No. 30, First Railway Gate Street,

Kilampakkam, Urapakkam,

Kanchipuram District.

8. G. Sathishkumar,

No. 159A, Railway Colony,

Chengalpattu.

9. T. Selvaraj,

No. 215, 3rd Street, M.G.R. Nagar,

Thenpathi Village,

Aathur Post,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

10. S. Muthamil Selvan,

102, SRM Nagar,

Kattankolathur Post,

Kancheepuram District.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

11. S. Kumaran,

8/10, Karpoorchettikulam,

Chengalpattu,

Kancheepuram District.

12. L. Durairaj,

162, TNHB, Koodalur,

Singaperumal Koil Via,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

13. M. Raffee,

5/215, 6th Main Road,

Otteri Extension,

Vandaloor, Chennai.

14. K. Varalakshmi,

3/76, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,

Mannivakkam,

Chengalpattu Taluk.

15. P. Veeramani,

Anbagam, Thayar Salai,

Panangattupakkam,

Kolathur Post,

Vandalur via, Chennai.

16. A. Venkatesan,

187, Mettu Street,

Illalur, Thiruporur Taluk.

17. K. Jothi,

4-44, M.R. Radha Road,

Puthuppakkam

Thiruporur Taluk,

Kanchipuram District.

18. The Chief Election Commissioner,

Secretariat,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-9.—Respondents.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

(Respondents 2 & 18 Struck off by the

order of this Hon’ble Court dated 11-09-2017

made in OA.Nos.369 & 370 of 2017

in ELP. No. 23 of 2016)

O.A. No. 1174 of 2017

This Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to reject the

Election Petition No. 23/2016.

The above Original Application No. 1174 of 2017 in ELP. No. 23/2016 having

been heard on 11-09-2018 before this Court in the presence of Mr. R. Neelakandan,

advocate for the Applicant/5th Respondent and Mr. S. Anbazhagan, Advocate for

the 1st Respondent/Election Petitioner and upon reading the Judges Summon and

Affidavit of M. Varalakshmi, filed in OA.No. 1174 of 2017 and the Counter affidavit

of R. Venkatesan, filed in OA.No. 1174 of 2017 and upon reading the Election

Petition filed herein and this court having stood over for consideration till this date

and coming on this day before this court for orders in the presence of the above

said advocates.

The Court made the following order:-

The 5th respondent in the Election Petition/Returned candidate is the applicant

herein. The above application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the

Election Petition.

2. The case of the applicant is as follows:

(i) In the General Election to Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly held on

16-05-2016, she contested as a candidate of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party in

No. 32, Chengalpattu Constituency and returned successfully. The Election Petition

is not at all maintainable since the prayer in the Election Petition is not available

to be prayed by the election petitioner as per the provisions of the Representation

of the People Act. The election petitioner only seeks to declare the election as null

and void and to conduct fresh election. Such prayer is not is consonance with the

sections under which the above election petition is filed. Nowhere in the election

petition, the election petitioner has pleaded that the election of the returned candidate

has been materially affected. Such mandatory requirement is totally absent and

thus, the election petition is liable to be rejected. The election petitioner alleged

violation of rules without even mentioning of which rules. Nothing is stated that

such alleged violation materially affected the election of the returned candidate. The

election petitioner vaguely pleaded that all the rules and regulations were violated.

No pleading was made to say that such alleged violation materially affected the

returned candidate. The decleration prayer is not in consonance with the provisions

of 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election petitioner

has not verified the election petition in compliance of section 83(1) (c) of the said

Act. many of the pages of the document annexed to the election petition do not

bear the petitioner’s signature.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

ii) The election petitioner is not clear about his verification at all, as he has

stated that he vertified the document based on his knowledge. But in the verified

affidavit, he has stated that the averments contained in paragraph 1 to 20 and list

of documents and the statement of addresses of the parties are true and correct to

the best of his knowledge, belief and information. There is no cause of action shown

by the election petitioner in the above election petition. No. case at all is made

out by the election petitioner in the entire paragraphs from 1 to 18 to have triable

issues. When there is no triable issue, the election petition is liable to be rejected.

No material facts are available in the election petition except certain bald and vague

allegations. There is no allegation at all against the applicant/5th respondent, which

shows that there is no cause of action at all.

3. The first respondent/election petitioner filed the counter affidavit wherein it is

stated as follows:

The first part of the prayer in the election petition squarely falls under section

100(1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, the applicant is

not correct is saying that the prayer in the election petition is not maintainable. The

election petitioner pleaded all the material facts about the violation of Rules (Conduct

of election rules 1961) and as to how no reasonable opportunity was given to him.

The material facts which are necessary to establish the allegation were given in the

petition. Because of the non-compliance of the statutory rules, the election is viod.

Because of the illegal action by the official respondents by not providing sufficient

opportunity and by not providing necessary documents in time, it had resulted the

election petitioner in getting very low votes. The result of the election, so far as it

concerned with the 5th respondent, has been materially affected. It is not correct

to state that there is difference in the verification part between the petition and

the document. Assuming but not admitting that there is defect in the verification, it

is a simple defect and not fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. The

election petitioner made specific averment in the cause of action paragraph about

the violation of rules and that itself is sufficient to file election petition.

4. Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as follows:

The election petitioner is an independent candidate. He filed the election pettion

under Section 80 to 84 and 10(1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the Peoples

Act, 1951. The election petitioner has not alleged any corrupt practice against the

returned candidate. The only allegation is non-compliance of provisions, that too,

against the Returning officer and Chief Election Commissioner, who were arrayed

as respondents 1 and 18. However, these respondents, on their applications,

were deleted from the array of the respondents in the order made in O.A.No.369

and 370 of 2016 dated 11-09-2017 by this Court. When all the allegations are

against the Returning Officer and Chief Election Commissioner and when those

Officials are not now on record to respond those allegations, the election petition

is liable to be rejected. The election petitioner has made only vague and bald

allegations in all the paragraphs without there being any specific material details.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

The prayer sought for in the election petition is to declare the election held on

16-05-2010 as null and void and not the election of the applicant/returned candidate,

as required under section 84. The relief, if at all, could be sought only for declaration

of all or any of the returned candidates election as void and not as prayed in this

election petition. Therefore, the election petition filed under Section 84 was not in

consonance with the relief to be asked under section 84. The requirement under

Section 83(a) & (c) are not complied with in the absence of any allegation. No material

facts are disclosed. There is contradiction in the verification paragraph. Only vague

averments were made to sustain the election petition filed under Section 100(1) (d)

(iv). The election petitioner obtained only 264 votes, whereas the applicant/returned

candidate obtained 1,12,675 votes. There are no triable issues arising out of the

facts and circumstances pleaded in the election petition.

5. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel relied on 2009 (10) SCC

541 (Ram Sukh V. Dinesh Aggarwal).

6. Mr. S. Anbalagan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/election

petitioner submitted as follows:

The effect of the prayer in the election is only, indirectly, challenging the election

of the returned candidate. If the prayer in the election is allowed, automatically

the election of the returned candidate would go. The election petitioner alleged

violation of election rules. Merely not pleading that the violation of Rules materially

affected the election of the returned candidate, is not fatal to the election petition.

In this connection 1995 Supp (1) SCC 422 (Jagjit Sing V. Dharam Pal Singh) and

1973 (2) SCC 45 (Durai Muthuswami V.N. Nachiappan) are relied on. The election

petitioner’s grievance is only against the Returning Officer and the Chief Election

Commissioner. The deletion of those officials in this Election Petition, will not affect

the maintainability of the same. In this connection, the order of this Court made in

E.P.No.4/2006 dated 01-07-2011 is relied on. The Election Petition is maintainable

even without making an allegation of corrupt practice.

7. Heard both sides and perused the material placed before this Court.

8. The first respondent herein as the election petitioner filed the election petition

to declare the election held on 16-05-2016 in No.32, Chengalpattu constituency as

null and void and direct the 18th respondent to conduct a fresh election by fixing

a date by providing sufficient opportunity along with necessary documents in time.

Election to No.32, Chengalpattu constituency was held on 16-05-2016, in which

the election petitioner, the applicant herein/5th respondent in the election petition

and others contested. The election petitioner is an independent candidate. The

applicant herein is the candidate belonging to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party.

In the said election, the election petitioner secured 264 votes. The applicant herein,

who is said to have secured 1,12,675 votes, became the successful candidate. The

present election petition is filed before this Court only by contending that the rules

of Conduct of Election Rules were violated and that reasonable opportunity was

denied to the election petitioner to contest the election effectively.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

9. From the perusal of the Election Petition, the allegation made by him with

regard to violation of Election Rules, could be culled out as follows:

The list of voters was not given to him. Form-7A list of finalised candidates

was not given to the election petitioner on the same day of allotment of symbol.

The petitioner’s request for permission to utilise a vehicle bearing Registration

No.TN AW 6432 for his campaign was not considered. He made a complaint to

the 1st and 18th respondents (who were later deleted form the array of parties) on

04-05-2016. Thereafter, the first respondent granted permission for using the said

vehicle only on 06-05-2016. The candidate identity card and election identify card were

not given at the earliest point of time. Without the list of candidates, the petitioner

was stuck in not doing campaign. The petitioner made a complaint on 13-05-2016

in not informing him about the fixing of the symbol on EVS. Without his presence,

the first respondent completed the action of fixing the symbol on EVS. The petitioner

reliably understood that in most of the EVS his symbol was not fixed. Thus, Rule

49 (B) (4) (b) is violated. Because of the illegal action of the first respondent, the

petitioner was not in a position to campaign effectively and thus, he was prevented

from participating and contesting the election effectively.

10. With the above allegations, the election petitioner seeks for declaration of the

election held in No. 32, Chengalpattu constituency as null and void and consequently,

for a direction to conduct a fresh election.

11. From a careful perusal of the entire averments made in the election petition,

it is seen that the grievance of the election petitioner is only against the Returning

Officer and the Chief Election Commissioner who were originally arrayed as 1st and

8th respondents, respectively. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

applicant, the election petitioner has not made any allegation against the applicant/

returned candidate. He has not alleged any corrupt practice against the returned

candidate or those officials as well. Except by saying Vague averments that some

Rules are violated, the election petitioner has not specifically stated as to which are

the Rules violated, which has materially affected the election of the returned candidate

namely, the applicant herein. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that in an application

filled by the 1st and 18th respondents in this election petition, in O.A.No.369 and

370 of 2017, this court, after hearing all parties, passed an order on 11-09-2017

and allowed those applications filed to struck off the 1st and 18th respondents as

the respondents in the election petition. Therefore, the fact remains that as of now

those official respondents are not on record. It is seen that the said order passed

by this court in stricking off the 1st and 18th respondents has not been challenged

by the election petitioner. Admittedly, the election petitioner is not having any

grievance or complaint against the applicant/returned candidate. All his allegations

as referred to supra. Are against the official respondents who are admittedly not the

parties now before this court. No doubt, the election petitioner submitted that those

official respondents can be summoned as witnesses to prove his case, even though

they are deleted from the array of the respondents. But in my considered view,

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

when the allegations are made against those officials, they have to either counter

such allegations or accept by way of their pleadings. Mere statement of those

officials as witnesses may not be sufficient to decide the Election petition. Even

otherwise, it is to be noted that those officials can be examined as witnesses only

in respect of the pleadings as such made buy the election petitioner in the election

petition and not outside the pleadings. A careful perusal of the entire averments

made in the election petition would indicate that, except making some bald and

vague allegations, they are bereft of material particulars and details. When such

being the position, Certainly, the petitioner is not entitled to improve his pleadings

through the depositions of the witnesses, ever assuming that during the course of

examination, the petitioner may put some questions which specific details. When

those details are totally absent in the pleadings, certainly, the petitioner is not entitled

to bring it in the form of a question to the witness as the first time, since neither

such question put to the witness nor the answer given by such witness can from

part of the pleadings or support the case of the election petitioner, in the absence

of such specific details and material particulars made in the pleadings at the very

beginning while filing the election petition. Therefore, in my considered view, the

election petitioner is not entitled to contend that the deletion of the official respondents

will not affect the election petition. Even otherwise, none of the averments made

in the election petition discloses any material fact as to how such allegation, even

found to be true, has materially affected the election of the retuned candidate. At

this juncture, it is useful to refer to section 84 of the Representation of the peoples

Act, where it is stated as follows:

54. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner:- A petitioner may, in addition

to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates

is void, claim a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been

duly elected.

12. In this connection, the decision of the Honourable Supreme court reported

in 2009 (10) SCC 541 relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant is relevant

to be quoted. At paragraph No.21, the Apex court has observed as follows:

21. We may now advert to the facts at hand to examine whether the election

petition suffered from the vice of non-disclosure of material facts as stipulated in

section 83(1)(a) of the Act. As already stated the case of the election petitioner is

confined to the alleged violation of Section 100 (1) (d) (iv). For the sake of ready

reference, the said provision is extracted below:

“100. Grounds for declaring election to be void - (1) Subject to the provisions

of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion-

(d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate,

has been materially affected-

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution oor of this Act

or of any rules or orders made under this Act.

the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.

13. Further, it is to be noted that the election petitioner has come out with bald

and vague allegations without furnishing any specific and material details. In paragraph

No.4, he simply stated that the rules were not complied with and the principles of

natural justice was violated. What is the Rule which was not complied with and in

what manner the Principles of natural justice was violated, have not been specifically

averred. In paragraph No.5 onwards, he only complained with regard to his inability

to canvass for the election due to the non-furnishing of voters list, identity card in

time and not permitting to utilize the vehicle in time the petitioner has not however,

stated as to how such delay, even assuming to be true, has materially affected

the election of the returned candidate. In paragraph No.12, he simply stated that

in most of the EVS, the symbol was not fixed and therefore, Rule 49 (4) (d) was

violated. He has not given the material details as to which are the EVS where his

symbol was missing. Therefore, this again is vague allegation. Certainly, these vague

allegations cannot be spoken to by the witnesses specifically, since it is settled law

that no amount of evidence could be relied on howsoever specific it. May be, in the

absence of specific pleading to that effect. Statement of a witness cannot improve

the pleading. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances. I find force

in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the returned candidate that

there are no tribal issues arising out of the averments made in the Election Petition.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on 1995 supp (l) Scc 422

(Jagjit Sing V. Dharam Pal Singh) to counted that in the absence of averment

that result of the election was materially affected due to the grounds raised in the

election petition, cannot be fatal. Perusel of the said decision would show that the

allegation of improper rejection or acceptance of votes wad made in the election

petition therein and that the election petitioner therein and lost the election by

margin of 80 votes only. Therefore, the “Circumstances”, as pleaded, play a very

important role even to draw conclusion. On the question as to whether the result of

the election has been material affected, even in the absence of any such averment

to that effect. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has secured only 264 votes,

whereas the returned candidate secured 1,12,675 votes. Moreover, the petitioner

has not pleaded as to how the events alleged in the election petition. Has materially

affected the result of the election. First of all, the events alleged must be specific

with material details so as to draw an inference that such of those events might

have materially affected the election of the returned candidate. Therefore, I find

that the above decision of the Apex court is factually distinguishable and thus, the

same is not applicable to the present case.

Tamil nadu government gazette extraordinary

15. 1973 (2) SCC 45 (Durai Muthuswami V.N. Nachiappan), is again relied on by

the learned counsel for the respondent for the very same proposition. A careful perusal

of the said decision would show that the election petitioner therein has specifically

made an averment that improper acceptance of the first respondent’s nomination

therein made the election void since the 1st respondent therein was suffering from

disqualification which will fall under Section 9-A. Therefore, it is evident that the

allegation and complaint of the election petitioner therein were not only specific but

also against the returned candidate, more particularly, with regard to his nomination.

Therefore, the Apex Court found that in such circumstance, it was not necessary for

the petitioner to further allege that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns

the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance by

the 1st respondent’s nomination. The facts and circumstances of the present case

are totally differenct. As already stated supra, the 1st respondent herein/election

petitioner is not having any complaint or grievance against the returned candidate

at all. If that is the admitted case, it is for petitioner to specifically allege as to

how to result of the returned candidate is materially affected based on the allegation

made in the election petition that too, being bald and vague. In absence of such

averments, I do not think that the above decision is also helping the respondnetn

in any manner.

16. 1999(2) SCC 217 (H.D. Ravanna V. G. Puttaswamy Gowda), is relied on

the condition that the defect in verification of the election petition or the affidavit

accompanying the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition

is curable and not fatal. There is no quarrel about the above said proposition. But

the issue involved in this case, based on the facts and circumstances as discussed

supra is totally different. An unreported decision of this court made in the Election

petition No.4 of 2006 dated 11-7-2011 is relied on by the respondent to contend

that the election petition is maintainable even in the absence of a ground of corrupt

practice. I do not think that the above decision has any relevance to the present

facts and circumstances, as discussed supra.

17. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

view the that the applicant herein is entitled to succeed and the Election Petition

is liable to the rejected as none of the grounds/allegations raised in the petition

projects a triable issue, warranting this court to conduct the trial. Accordingly,

this application is allowed and consequently, the Election Petition is rejected. The

connected application is closed.