[ 1 ]

P—V-4 Ex.(250)—1

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

. 250]

CHENNAI, THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022

Chithirai 15, Subakiruthu, Thiruvalluvar Aandu–2053

Part V—Section 4

Notiﬁ cations by the Election Commission of India

NOTIFICATIONS BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

udgement of the High Court of Madras in Election Petition No.08 of 2021

. SRO G-4/2022.

The following Notiﬁ cation of the Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan,

hoka Road, New Delhi-110 001, dated 06th April, 2022 [ 16 Chetra, 1945 (Saka)]

published:-

No.82/TN-LA/ (EP 8 of 2021)/2022:- In pursuance of section 106 (b) of the

presentation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission

eby publishes the Order of the High Court of Madras dated 17.03.2022 in

ction Petition No. 8 of 2021.

THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Election Petition No.8 of 2021

O.A.Nos. 764 of 2021 & 15 of 2022

ELP No.8 of 2021 & OA.No. 15 of 2022

P.Milany

S/o. Ponnuram,

No.7-5-5/9, Sanjay Gandhi,

1 st Street, Palani Cheti patti.

Theni Taluk and District - 625 531.

...Petitioner

-Vs-

O. Panneerselvam,

S/o.Mr. Ottakara Thevar,

145/70, South Agraharam,

Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601.

Theni District.

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly Constituency,

Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer

State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Chennai - 600 009.

Election Commission of India,

Represented by Chief Election Commissioner,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondents/Respondents.

(Respondents 2 to 4 are struck oﬀ from the respondents in ELP.8 of 2021 as per

order of this court dated 03.12.2021 made in O.A.No.636 of 2021).

P No.8 of 2021:-

The Election Petition praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare

Election of the 1st respondent as elected member of the legislative assembly

m 200 - Bodinayakanur assembly constituency in the assembly election of

mil Nadu 2021 as declared by the 2nd respondent on 03.05.2021 as null and void.

.No.15 of 2022:-

This Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant leave to

and accept the additional documents listed in the schedule hereunder, on ﬁ le of

ction Petition No.8 of 2021.

Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601.

Theni District.

...Applicant/1st Respondent

-VS-

P.Milany

S/o. Ponnuram,

No.7-5-5/9, Sanjay Gandhi,

1st Street, Palani Cheti patti,

Theni Taluk and District - 625 531. ... 1st Respondent/ Election

Petitioner

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly Constituency,

Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer

State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Chennai - 600 009.

Election Commission of India,

Represented by Chief Election Commissioner,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110 001.

...Respondents/Respondents

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

Election Petition No.8 of 2021 with cost.

The above Election Petition and Original Applications having been heard on

02/2022 in the presence of Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, advocate for the

ction Petitioner/Applicant in O.A.No.15 of 2022 and for the 1st Respondent in

A.No.764 of 2021 and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior counsel for M/s.P.Rajalakshmi

d G.Prakash Kumar, advocates for the applicant in O.A.No.764 of 2021 and for

1st Respondent in ELP.No.8 of 2021 & O.A.No.15 of 2022; and upon reading the

ition, Aﬃ davit, Judges Summon and Aﬃ davit of P.Milany ﬁ led in Election Petition

d OA.No.15 of 2022 and counter aﬃ davit ﬁ led in OA.No.764 of 2021; and Judge’s

mmon, Aﬃ davit of O.Panneerselvam ﬁ led in OA.No.764 of 2021; and this court

ving stood over for consideration till this day and coming on this day before this

rt for orders in the presence of the above said advocates and this Court is of

view that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action and failed to

e rise to triable issues an d

s ordered as follows:-

That the Election Petition No.8 of 2021 be and is hereby rejected.

IEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 17TH DAY

MARCH 2022.

Sd. /-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side – II

//Certiﬁ ed to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 22nd day of March 2022.

COURT OFFICER (O.S.)

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certiﬁ ed copies of

Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

OA.Nos.764 of 2021 & 15 of 2022

ORDER

DATED: 17/03/2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

V. BHARATHIDASAN

FOR APPROVAL: 22/03/2022

APPROVED ON: 22/03/2022

Copy to:-

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant

Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly

Constituency, Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer

State of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

The Election Commission of

India, Nirvachan Sadan,

Ashoka Road, New Delhi

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Election Petition No. 8 of 2021

O.A.Nos.764 of 2021 & 15 of 2022

P No.8 of 2021 & O.A.No.15 of 2022:-

P. Milany

S/o. Ponnuram,

No.7-5-5/9, Sanjay Gandhi,

1st Street, Palani Cheti patti,

Theni Taluk and District - 625 531.

... Petitioner

-VS-

O. Panneerselvam,

S/o.Mr. Ottakara Thevar,

145/70, South Agraharam,

Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601.

Theni District.

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly Constituency,

Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer,

State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Chennai - 600 009.

Election Commission of India,

Represented by Chief Election Commissioner,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110 001.

...Respondents/Respondents

* (Respondents 2 to 4 are struck oﬀ from the respondents in ELP. 8 of 2021

per order of this court dated 03.12.2021 made in O.A.No.636 of 2021).

P No.8 of 2021:-

The Election Petition praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the

ction of the 1st respondent as elected member of the legislative assembly from

0- Bodinayakanur assembly constituency in the assembly election of Tamil Nadu

21 as declared by the 2nd respondent on 03.05.2021 as null and void.

A.No.764 of 2021:-

O. Panneerselvam,

S/o.Mr. Ottakara Thevar,

145/70, South Agraharam,

Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601.

Theni District.

...Applicant/1^st Respondent

-VS-

P.Milany

S/o. Ponnuram,

No.7-5-5/9, Sanjay Gandhi,

1st Street, Palani Cheti patti,

Theni Taluk and District - 625 531.

... 1^st Respondent/ Election

Petitioner

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly Constituency,

Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer

State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Chennai - 600 009.

Election Commission of India,

Represented by Chief Election Commissioner,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110 001.

...Respondents/Respondents

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

Election Petition No.8 of 2021 with cost.

The above Election Petition and Original Applications having been

ard on 25/02/2022 in the presence of Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome,

vocate for the Election Petitioner/Applicant in O.A.No.15 of 2022 and for

1^st Respondent in O.A.No.764 of 2021 and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior counsel

M/s.P.Rajalakshmi and G.Prakash Kumar, advocates for the applicant in O.A.No.764

2021 and for the 1^st Respondent in ELP.No.8 of 2021 & O.A.No.15 of 2022; and

on reading the Petition, Aﬃ davit, Judges Summon and Aﬃ davit of P.Milany ﬁ led

Election Petition and OA.No.15 of 2022 and counter aﬃ davit ﬁ led in OA.No.764

2021; and Judge’s Summon, Aﬃ davit of O.Panneerselvam ﬁ led in OA.No.764 of

21; and this court having stood over for consideration till this day and coming on

day before this court for orders in the presence of the above said advocates and

court made the following order:-

as per their array in the Election Petition.

The election petitioner claiming himself as an eligible elector from

dinayakanur Legislative Assembly constituency, has ﬁ led this election petition, to

clare the election of the ﬁ rst respondent, from Bodinayakanur Legislative Assembly

stituency as null and void.

The election petition has been filed on the ground that, in the

neral Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held in April,

21, the first respondent contested from Bodinayakanur Legislative

sembly constituency as the official candidate of the All India Anna

avida Munnerta Kazhagam (in short AIADMK’) and secured 1,00,050

es and he was declared elected. According to the election petitioner, the

t respondent, at the time of filing his nomination papers, suppressed

ny facts and failed to disclose the assets and liabilities of his wife,

s.P.Vijayalakshmi, which amounts to non compliance of the provisions

Sections 33 and 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter

erred to as the Act’) r/w Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter

erred to as the ‘Rules’).

Further according to the election petitioner, on verification of

affidavit furnished by the first respondent in Form 26, along with his

mination papers, the election petitioner came to know about the suppressions

d non-disclosure of full particulars of the assets and liabilities of his wife. The

gations made in the election petition, in brief are as follows:

(i) In the aﬃ davit ﬁ led in Form 26, at Para 8(i), the ﬁ rst respondent has

stated that his wife has given guarantee to the City Union Bank, Mandaveli

Branch, Chennai, for the credit facility sanctioned to one M/s.Vijayanth

Developers Pvt. Ltd for Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees twelve crores). However,

from the Memorandum of extension of equitable mortgage by way of deposit

of Title Deeds, executed by her on 22.01.2021 and 10.02.2021, it is reﬂ ected

that the total bank guarantee given by the wife of the ﬁ rst respondent was

Rs.27,50,00,000/- thereby the ﬁ rst respondent has suppressed the liability of

his wife to the extent of Rs.15,50,00,000/- in his aﬃ davit.

(ii) In para 7B(i), of the aﬃ davit ﬁ led in Form 26, the market value of

various properties owned by the ﬁ rst respondent’s wife has been shown as

Rs. 1,21,12,500/-, however, the actual value stated in the bank guarantee

given by her before the bank was shown as Rs. 13.5 crores. Hence, the ﬁ rst

respondent has undervalued the property and wrongly disclosed her assets.

(iii)

In the very same paragraph in 7B(i), of the aﬃ davit, with respect

to various agricultural lands, the value is shown as Rs.27,51,086/-, however

apart, in respect of the above said house property, at the time of purchase,

there was no building, but, now it is shown that a 2000 sq.ft, of residential

building has been constructed there and thereby huge investment has been

made, which has been suppressed.

(v) So far as the non agricultural property situated in S.No. 4293/1 at

South Agragaram, Periyakulam town, it has been shown as a vacant land,

however it was assessed for property tax by the concerned municipality

and hence the presence of the building has been suppressed by the ﬁ rst

respondent.

(vi)

In paragraph 7B, of the aﬃ davit, the ﬁ rst respondent suppressed

ﬁ ve residential building owned by his wife, in various survey numbers at

Thenkarai Village, Periyakulam Taluk, though it has been reﬂ ected in the

registration records.

(vii) In paragraph 9(a), of the aﬃ davit, the ﬁ rst respondent has mentioned

his profession as agriculturist, but he has not shown any agricultural income,

whereas, he has only shown the agricultural income of his wife, hence there

is misrepresentation by the ﬁ rst respondent.

(viii) After declaring that all the particulars given in Form 26 are true,

in contrary to the said declaration, the ﬁ rst respondent concealed material

informations, which amounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Sections

33 and 33A of the Act and Rule 4A of the Rules.

(ix)

The nondisclosure of immovable properties materially aﬀ ect the result

of the election, and the deliberate suppression of material facts, furnishing

of false information by the ﬁ rst respondent amounts to improper acceptance

of nomination as contemplated under Section 100(l)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act.

With the above allegations the election petitioner has sought to declare the

ction of the ﬁ rst respondent from Bodinayakanur Legislative Assembly constituency

null and void.

The ﬁ rst respondent has ﬁ led the present application, under Order VII

e 11 of CPC, to reject the election petition on the ground that, the election

tioner has not set out any case of improper acceptance of nomination or non-

mpliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, as the election petitioner does

substantially set out any material facts on which the election petitioner relies

challenge the election of the ﬁ rst respondent, the election petition is liable to be

ected. That apart, the election petition contains only vague and bald allegations,

oes not disclose any triable issue and no cause of action has been made out.

t or misrepresentation in the aﬃ davit ﬁ led by the ﬁ rst respondent. The details of

ch shall be discussed in the later part of this order.

Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst

pondent/ returned candidate, would submit that the allegations set out in the

ction petition are totally incorrect, there is no nondisclosure of assets and liabilities

d immovable properties in Form 26. The ﬁ rst respondent has not misrepresented

berately and has not ﬁ led any false aﬃ davit. The learned senior counsel also

en the Court to each and every allegation made in the election petition along

h the relevant documents ﬁ led along with the election petition to substantiate that

allegations contained in the election petition are totally untrue, baseless and all

details as required under Form 26, have been duly and correctly furnished by

ﬁ rst respondent.

Further, according to the learned senior counsel, the allegations made in

election petition is not related to any nondisclosure of the immovable property,

immovable properties owned by the spouse of the ﬁ rst respondent has been

y disclosed. According to the learned senior counsel, there is no allegation either

ainst the ﬁ rst respondent or his spouse that they owned or possessed some other

movable property other than those that has been disclosed in the aﬃ davit and

same has been suppressed by the ﬁ rst respondent. Even assuming there is

ndisclosure of assets, it only gives raise to an oﬀ ence under Section 125-A of the

, and on that ground, the election of the ﬁ rst respondent cannot be set aside.

nce, according to the learned senior counsel, no case is made out to show that

election has been materially aﬀ ected. Mere vague averments that non-disclosure

mmovable property in Form 26 materially aﬀ ected the election is not suﬃ cient

hout any supporting materials therein. Even though there is no suppression of

al liability of the ﬁ rst respondent wife, even assuming that the liability was not

closed, the election petitioner is not entitled to get the relief he sought for in

election petition and on that ground, the election of the ﬁ rst respondent cannot

declared as null and void. According to the learned senior counsel, from the

rments made in the election petition, absolutely there is nothing to show that

re has been improper acceptance of nomination, which has materially aﬀ ected

result of the election. Therefore, as the election petition has not disclosed any

se of action or raised any triable issue, the election petition has to be rejected

he threshold.

Per contra, Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, the learned counsel appearing

the election petitioner, would contend that, the ﬁ rst respondent/returned candidate,

le ﬁ ling the aﬃ davit has deliberately suppressed the assets and liabilities of his

e and his nomination has been improperly accepted by the Returning Oﬃ cer

pite objections, therefore, on that ground itself, the election of the ﬁ rst respondent

to be declared null and void.

10. Further, according to the learned counsel, it is incumbent upon every

didate to give information about his assets and liabilities, which is an essential

the ﬁ rst respondent materially aﬀ ected the result of the election. The learned

nsel also elaborately argued on each and every allegations made in the election

tion with relevant documents. That apart, the learned counsel also relied upon

mber of judgments, which will be referred to in the later part of this order.

11. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials

ilable on record carefully.

12. The election petition has been ﬁ led alleging noncompliance of the provisions

Sections 33 and 33-A of the Act, which is in violation of Section 100(1)(d)(i) and

of the Act, which is now sought to be rejected by the ﬁ rst respondent. It would

useful to refer to the relevant provisions of CPC, the Representation of People

and Conduct of Election Rules.

13. Order VII Rule 11 CPC, deals with rejection of plaint, which is extracted

eunder:

“Order VII Rule 11 Rejection of plaint.—The plaint shall be rejected in the

owing cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiﬀ on being required

the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be ﬁ xed by the Court, fails to

so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned

on paper insuﬃ ciently stamped, and the plaintiﬀ , on being required by the Court

supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be ﬁ xed by the Court, fails to

so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by

y law;

(e) where it is not ﬁ led in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiﬀ fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

Provided that the time ﬁ xed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or

pplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for

sons to be recorded, is satisﬁ ed that the plaintiﬀ was prevented by any cause of

exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp

per, as the case may be, within the time ﬁ xed by the Court and that refusal to

end such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiﬀ “

14. Section 33 of the Act, speaks about presentation of nomination paper and

requirements for a valid nomination. Section 33-A of the Act, speaks about right

Section 33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid

nomination.—

(1) On or before the date appointed under clause

(a) of section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer,

between the hours of eleven o’clock in the forenoon and three o’clock in

the afternoon deliver to the returning oﬃ cer at the place speciﬁ ed in this

behalf in the notice issued under section 31a nomination paper completed

in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the

constituency as proposer:

Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party,

shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election form a constituency

unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors

of the constituency:

Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the

returning oﬃ cer on a day which is a public holiday:

Provided also that in the case of a local authorities’ constituency,

graduates’ constituency or teachers’ constituency, the reference to “an elector

of the constituency as proposer” shall be construed as a reference to ten

per cent, of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors, whichever

is less, as proposers.

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), for election

to the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim (deemed to be the Legislative Assembly

of that State duly constituted under the Constitution), the nomination paper

to be delivered to the returning oﬃ cer shall be in such form and manner as

may’ be prescribed:

Provided that the said nomination paper shall be subscribed by the

candidate as assenting to the nomination, and—

(a)

in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha

origin, also by at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and

twenty electors of the constituency as seconders;

(b)

in the case of a seat reserved for Sanghas, also by at least twenty

electors of the constituency as proposers and at least twenty electors of the

constituency as seconders;

(c)

in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Nepali origin, by

an elector of the constituency as proposer:

Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the

returning oﬃ cer on a day which is a public holiday.

(3) Where the candidate is a person -who, having held any oﬃ ce

referred to in Section 9, has been dismissed and a period of ﬁ ve years has

not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be duly

nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied by

a certiﬁ cate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to

the eﬀ ect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the

State.

(4) On the presentation of a nomination paper, the returning oﬃ cer shall

satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate

and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those

entered in the electoral rolls :

Provided that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical

or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or

any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll

or the nomination paper and no clerical, technical or printing error in regard

to the electoral roll numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the

nomination paper, shall aﬀ ect the full operation of the electoral roll or the

nomination paper with respect to such person or place in any case where

the description in regard to the name of the person or place is such as to

be commonly understood; and the returning oﬃ cer shall permit any such

misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error to

be corrected and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate

description, clerical, technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the

nomination paper shall be overlooked.

(5) Where the candidate is an elector of a diﬀ erent constituency, a copy

of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a

certiﬁ ed copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless it has been ﬁ led

along with the nomination paper, be produced before the returning oﬃ cer at

the time of scrutiny.

(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being

nominated by more than one nomination paper:

Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented

by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the returning oﬃ cer for

election in the same constituency.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or in any other

provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for

election,—

State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies),

from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State;

(c) in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a

State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the

State;

(d) in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for ﬁ lling

two or more seats allotted to a State, for ﬁ lling more than two such seats;

(e) in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two

or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from

more than two such Parliamentary constituencies;

(f) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State

from two or more Assembly constituencies which are held simultaneously,

from more than two such Assembly constituencies;

(g) in the case of bye-elections to the Council of States for ﬁ lling two

or more seats allotted to a State, which are held simultaneously, for ﬁ lling

more than two such seats;

(h) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Council of a State

having such Council from two or more Council constituencies which are held

simultaneously, from more than two such Council constituencies.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more

bye-elections shall be deemed to be held simultaneously where the notiﬁ cation

calling such bye-elections are issued by the Election Commission under

section 147, section 149, section 150 or, as the case may be, section

151 on the same date.

***

Section 33-A, Right to information.—

(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required

to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper

delivered under sub-section (1) or section 33, also furnish the information as to

whether –

(i) he is accused of any oﬀ ence punishable with imprisonment for two

years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the

court of competent jurisdiction;

of delivering to the returning oﬃ cer the nomination paper under sub section (1)

of section 33, also deliver to him an aﬃ davit sworn by the candidate

in a prescribed form very ﬁ ne the information speciﬁ ed in sub -section (1).

(3) The returning oﬃ cer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of

information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by

aﬃ xing a copy of the aﬃ davit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous

place at his oﬃ ce for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for

which the nomination paper is delivered.]

***

Section 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of

opinion—

(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualiﬁ ed,

or was disqualiﬁ ed, to be chosen to ﬁ ll the seat under the Constitution or

this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate

or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned

candidate or his election agent; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned

candidate, has been materially aﬀ ected—

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned

candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the

reception of any vote which is void, or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or 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.

(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been

guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice but

the High Court is satisﬁ ed—

(b) Omitted

(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means

for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and

(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt

practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents then the

High Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.”

***

Rule 4-A, Form of aﬃ davit to be ﬁ led at the time of delivering

nomination paper.—

The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of

delivering to the returning oﬃ cer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of

section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an aﬃ davit sworn by the candidate

before a Magistrate of the ﬁ rst class or a Notary in Form 26”

15. Now let us consider whether the averments contained in the election

tion is lagging in material facts, and it fails to disclose cause of action, ultimately

rranting rejection of the election petition.

16. The election petition has been ﬁ led on the ground that the ﬁ rst respondent

le ﬁ ling his nomination, in the aﬃ davit ﬁ led under Form 26, has not disclosed

full particulars of the assets and liabilities of his wife, which amounts to

n-compliance of Sections 33 and 33A of the Act and Rule 4-A of the Rules.

w, let us consider the allegations set out by the election petitioner in the election

tion in detail.

egation contained in Para 10(i) of the Election Petition:

17. The main allegation is that, in the aﬃ davit ﬁ led by the ﬁ rst respondent he had

pressed the assets, liabilities and immovable properties of his wife. According to

election petitioner, in the aﬃ davit ﬁ led in Form 26, the ﬁ rst respondent has stated

paragraph 8(i) that, his wife stood as a guarantor for M/s.Vijayanth Developers

. Ltd., owned by one of her sons for Rs. 12,00,00,000/-. Further, according to the

ction petitioner, the total guarantee given in respect of the properties, which was

rtgaged, for the loan borrowed by her son, V.P.Jayapradeep, was Rs.27,50,00,000/-,

nce there is a suppression of liabilities to an extent of Rs. 15,50,00,000/- in the

davit.

18. Disputing the same, the learned senior counsel for the ﬁ rst respondent

mitted that, originally, the properties which were given as guarantee to the

nk belongs to her two sons viz., Mr.Raveendranath and Mr.Jayaprdeep, later

above said properties have been gifted by them in favour of their mother

s.P. Vijayalakshmi, the wife of the ﬁ rst respondent, by means of a Gift Settlement

Mr.V.P.Jayapradeep and another guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10 crores for

.Vijayanth Developers Private Ltd., on 20.05.2019. The election petitioner has

d all the memorandum of deposit of title deeds, relying on which, the learned

ior counsel for the ﬁ rst respondent would submit that, there is no suppression

iability and the written submissions ﬁ led by the ﬁ rst respondent can be usefully

erred, which is as follows:

“The credit facilities availed by the Company in respect of the

agricultural punja lands were originally stood in the name of the sons of

the Applicant/respondent, wherein they had mortgaged the said land along

with other properties for their business with City Union Bank, Mandaveli,

Chennai from the year 2018 onwards and the same was continued till 2021

whereas the title deeds deposited in the name of one Mr.Raveendranath

and Mr.Jayapradeep had transferred out of love and aﬀ ection to their

mother, i.e., the spouse of the candidate Mrs.P.Vijayalakshmi by way of

Gift Settlement Deeds only after obtaining consent from the bank (page

No. 76 in the Election Petition) and executed Gift Settlement Deed dated

22.01.2021 registered as Document No.172/2021 (Page No. 44 in Election

Petition) by the 1st son and Gift Settlement Deed dated 10.02.2021 registered

as Document No.386/2021 (Page No. 191 in election petition) by the 2nd

son. Wherein the credit facilities which was fully availed by the company is

prior to the Settlement to the spouse of the candidate

Mrs.P. Vijayalakshmi and she only stood as a guarantor to the credit facility

been availed by the company.

(i) The Election Petition referred two Memorandum of Deposit of Title

Deeds in the name of the spouse of the candidate Mrs.P. Vijayalakshmi,

whereas in the 1st Deed dated 22.01.2021 covers a loan of Rs. 1.50 Crores

individually in the name of Mr. V.P.Jayapradeep on 03.08.2018 (through

MODT(Deed) vide., Doc.No. 1879/2018) (Page No. 15 in Additional Documents)

and

(ii) An additional credit facility covers a loan of Rs. 10 Crores (through

MODT (Deed) vide., Document No.1183/2019) (Page No.32 in Additional

Documents) in the name of M/s. Vijayanth Developers Private Ltd., on

20.05.2019 and

(iii) And enhanced credit limit of 2 Crores in the name of M/s. Vijayanth

Developers Private Ltd., on 10.11.2020 (through MODT (Deed) vide., Document

No.2399/2020) (Page No. 101 in Additional Documents) was sanctioned and

released on 10.02.2021 against the security of immovable properties in the

name of Mrs.P. Vijayalakshmi, the wife of the Candidate.

(iv)

The total loan was therefore only Rs. 13.50 Crores.

as a separate MODT(Deed) to the tune of Rs.13.50 Crores and the 2nd

MODT(Deed) as a separate MODT(Deed) to the tune of Rs. 14 Crores and

wrongly arrived to a conclusion that the Applicant’s wife Mrs.P. Vijayalakshmi

has given a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 27.50 Crores which is total

misconception of facts.

(vi)

In this Connection a Rectiﬁ cation Deed was registered on 11.03.2021

vide., Document No.785/2021 (Page No. 120 in Additional Documents) and

the list of the Title Deeds deposited and Description of Property was altered.

(vii) Whereas the Election Petitioner ﬁ led a Mortgage Receipt dated

18.08.2021 vide., Document No.2008/2021 (Page No. 140 in Additional

Documents) conﬁ rm the total loan amount mortgaged by the wife of the

candidate Mrs.P. Vijayalakshmi is a sum of Rs. 12 Crores vide 10.02.2021

vide., Document No.410/2021 (Page No. 167 in the Election Petition)/

Hence a sum of Rs. 12 Crores has been stated accurate in Paragraph

8(1) of the Aﬃ davit in Form-26 of the Nomination Papers ﬁ led by the Applicant

and there is no suppression of facts as alleged by the Election Petitioner.”

19. I have carefully considered all those documents, and I ﬁ nd that originally

the properties were mortgaged by the ﬁ rst respondent’s sons and thereafter, the

perties were transferred in favour of the ﬁ rst respondent wife with the consent

he bank and after the properties have been transferred in her name, she has

ended the bank guarantee only for a sum of Rs. 12 crores, which has been

closed in the aﬃ davit and therefore there is no suppression or misrepresentation

the ﬁ rst respondent.

egation contained in Para 10(ii) & (iii) of the Election Petition:

20. The next allegation is that, the total market value of the agricultural

perties has been shown as Rs. 1,12,12,500/-, in respect of some survey numbers

asuring an extent of 31.37 acres at Thenkarai Village and Thamaraikulam Village

Periyakulam Taluk, and another extent of land measuring 8.36 acres, in respect

some other survey numbers in Thenkarai Village, Periyakulam Taluk it has been

wn as Rs.27,51,086/-, in the aﬃ davit, whereas while the same properties were

en as guarantee to the bank, the value has been shown as Rs. 13.5 crores and

14 crores respectively thereby, according to the election petitioner, by undervaluing

properties a false aﬃ davit has been ﬁ led by the ﬁ rst respondent.

21. The above allegations have been disputed by the learned senior counsel

pearing for the ﬁ rst respondent, and stated that, not only the agricultural property owned

his wife has been given as guarantee but the properties stood in the name of other

ectors of the company are also included in it. Hence it is not his wife’s property alone

ch was given as guarantee, and the market value of all the properties were shown as

13.5 crores and Rs.14 crores respectively. The learned senior counsel also

ue of all the properties were mentioned therein, and there is no suppression or

dervaluation of the properties.

egation contained in Para 10(iv) of the Election Petition:

23. The next allegation is that, the ﬁ rst respondent has given a wrong survey

mber in respect of his residential building as Survey No.4294 instead of Survey

4294/1.

24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst respondent referred to the

tiﬁ ed copy of the sale deed dated 24.11.1998, ﬁ led by the election petitioner, by

ch she had purchased the above property, wherein, in the schedule of properties,

Survey number has been mentioned as only 4294 and not as 4294/1.

25. This Court also veriﬁ ed the same and as per the sale deed, the land in

vey number purchased by the petitioner’s wife is only 4294 and not 4294/1 as

ted by the election petitioner, and this allegation is totally baseless.

egation contained in Para 10(v) of the Election Petition:

26. According to the petitioner, the ﬁ rst respondent and his wife originally

chased an extent of 2068.5 sq.ft of land in survey number 4294, in South

aharam, Thenkarai at Periyakulam, at that time there was no house, but at

sent a residential building has been constructed after demolishing the old building.

wever, that has been suppressed by the ﬁ rst respondent and the value of the

ove development was not disclosed in the aﬃ davit.

27. The said allegation has been disputed by the ﬁ rst respondent that, at

time of purchase of the property, the value was only Rs.2,72,375/-, however at

time of nomination, in the aﬃ davit, he has shown the value of the property as

30,00,000/- and that variation in the value included construction put up therein

d he has not suppressed the total value of the property, which also included the

velopment made therein.

28. This Court veriﬁ ed the documents and the aﬃ davit and it cannot be stated

t the ﬁ rst respondent has suppressed the development made in the above survey

mber, and this allegations cannot be sustained.

egation contained in Para 10(vi) of the Election Petition:

29. The next allegation relates to the property in T.S.No.4293/1, at South

aharam, Periyakulam Town, according to the election petitioner it has been

wn as a vacant land, but the Periyakulam Municipality has assessed property

for the property, which shows that there is a residential building and the ﬁ rst

pondent has suppressed the superstructure in the said property.

he said property and the ﬁ rst respondent has not suppressed anything. Further,

sale deed has also been produced by the election petitioner himself.

31. A perusal of the sale deed, in the schedule of property, it is shown as

ows:

(Emphasis added)

32. From the schedule, it could be seen that there is an old dilapidated building

ore her purchase, which was also assessed for property tax, and she continues

pay the tax. Merely because the ﬁ rst respondent’s wife is paying property tax, it

not be presumed that there is a building therein, and it cannot be held that the

t respondent has suppressed the same.

egation contained in Para 10(vii) of the Election Petition:

33. The next allegation is that, the first respondent suppressed

e residential buildings in S.Nos.3199/1, 3205/2, 3161/2 and 1329/3A in

enkarai village, Periyakulam taluk. According to the election petitioner

these land and buildings are owned by his wife, which has been suppressed in

aﬃ davit.

34. The learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst respondent would submit

t, the above mentioned survey numbers are agricultural properties and there is

residential building, only small sheds are there for storage of fertilizers, farm

uipments, a pump house and restrooms for agricultural labourers working therein,

d no property tax has been assessed for any of the above said sheds by the

al body. The learned senior counsel also referred to the relevant sale deeds to

stantiate his contention that, it is only small sheds put for agricultural labourers

d also used as store room for agricultural equipments, and there is no residential

ding as alleged by the election petitioner.

35.I have also carefully gone through the sale deeds, and there is no residential

dings as alleged by the election petitioner and in the sale deeds itself those sheds

mentioned as only restrooms for agricultural labourers and none of the sale deeds

w that there are residential buildings as alleged by the election petitioner. The

ction petitioner has not substantiated his contention with any other material that

re are residential buildings which has been suppressed by the ﬁ rst respondent.

3 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst respondent would submit

t, the ﬁ rst respondent is only an agriculturist by occupation and admittedly his wife

ned agricultural lands, and the income derived from the said agricultural lands

ve been shown separately by her wife. Merely because the election petitioner

not owned any agricultural land, it cannot be considered as misrepresentation.

38. I ﬁ nd some force in the argument made by the learned senior counsel. Perusal

he records, it could be seen that, the income shown by the ﬁ rst respondent is

ome earned by him as Deputy Chief Minister and he has separately shown the

icultural income of his wife. Admittedly his family owns agricultural properties,

rely because the ﬁ rst respondent did not have any separate agricultural income,

annot be construed that he is not an agriculturist and at any rate it could not be

sidered as misrepresentation. It is also not the case of the election petitioner

t the ﬁ rst respondent is having separate occupation and he is not an agriculturist.

egation contained in Para 10(ix) of the Election Petition:

39. The next allegation is with regard to non compliance of the provisions of

ctions 33 and 33A of the Act.

40. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst respondent

olutely there is no averment in the election petition, as to any violation of Section

A of the Act. Section 33A of the Act, deals with disclosure of information regarding

minal case involved by the candidates, and absolutely there is no allegation that

ﬁ rst respondent has been an accused in any criminal case or convicted for any

ence, and failed to disclose the same. Hence there is no violation of Section 33A of

Act.

41. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel it is not the case of

election petitioner that, the ﬁ rst respondent is involved in criminal oﬀ ence, or

has been convicted. In the said circumstances, it cannot be held that the ﬁ rst

pondent has violated the provisions of Section 33 A of the Act.

42. It is true that, it is incumbent upon every candidate contesting in the election

give full information as required under the Act and Rules. It is an essential part of

and free election, that apart, every voter has right to know about these details

every candidate from the aﬃ davit ﬁ led in Form 26 along with the nomination

m. Every candidate is required to disclose his assets and liabilities and his family

mbers at the time of election, which will enable the voter to know about the

didate. Further the voter has the right to get information about the candidates

ch is an integral part of Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India.

43. In the event of any candidate fails to disclose his assets and liabilities

d other informations, and ﬁ led a false aﬃ davit, along with his nomination, is an

roper nomination and the candidate is not entitled to contest the election. Even

he nomination is accepted, at a later stage, if the Court comes to a conclusion

43. When the information is given by a candidate in the aﬃ davit ﬁ led along

with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning

the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non disclosure of

certain important information, it may not be possible for the Returning Oﬃ cer

at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not

suﬃ ce. The, present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates

this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Oﬃ cer to

reject the nomination for want of veriﬁ cation about the allegations made by

the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of

non-disclosure and either the aﬃ davit was false or it did not contain complete

information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the

nomination was improperly accepted. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior

counsel appearing for the Election Commission, right argued that such an

enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an

election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The

grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and

then and on that basis the Returning Oﬃ cer would be in a position to reject

the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an aﬃ davit, nomination

can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is

needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as

to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper

acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as

there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can

state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later

date. When the Court gives such a ﬁ nding, which would have resulted in

rejection, the eﬀ ect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled

to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous

situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125-A of the

Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and

convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be

countenanced. “

44. Further, whether a candidate has suppressed material facts or failed to

close his assets and liabilities or other informations, and whether the non-disclosure

uld amounts to material lapse, has to be decided based upon the facts and

umstances of each case.

45. In the instant case, the allegations of the election petitioner regarding the

n-disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the ﬁ rst respondent’s wife and the

gation of misrepresentation, have been elaborately considered and this Court

mes to a conclusion that, the election petitioner failed to substantiate that, the ﬁ rst

pondent had violated the provisions of Sections 33A, and 100(l)(d)(i) and (iv) of the

. This Court also fully satisﬁ ed that the ﬁ rst respondent had substantially complied

h all the requirements as required in the Act. That apart, as rightly contended

the learned senior counsel appearing for the ﬁ rst respondent, absolutely there

action, and gives rise to a triable issue.

46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs.

jiv Gandhi reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 in paragraphs 8 and 11 has held

follows:

“8. The ﬁ rst question which falls for our determination is whether

the High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under Order

VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to reject the election

petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at the preliminary stage

even though no written statement had been ﬁ led by the respondent.

Section 80 provides that no election is to be called in question except

by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions

of Part VI of the Act before the High Court. Section 81 provides that

an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds

speciﬁ ed in Section 100 by an elector or by a candidate questioning

the election of a returned candidate. Section 83 provides that an

election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts

on which the petitioner relies and he shall set forth full particulars

of any corrupt practice that he may allege including full statement

of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt

practice and the date and place of the commission of each such

practice. Section 86 confers power on the High Court to dismiss an

election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections

81 and 82 or Section 117. Section 87 deals with the procedure

to be followed in the trial of the election petition and it lays down

that subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules made

thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court

as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable

to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since

provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to the trial of an election

petition, Order VI Rule 16 and Order VI Rule 17 are applicable to

the proceedings relating to the trial of an election petition subject to

the provisions of the Act. On a combined reading of Sections 81,

83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paragraphs of a

petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be

struck oﬀ under Order VI Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at

any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which

is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend

to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit.

It is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint and it need not wait

till the defendant ﬁ les written statement and points out the defects. If

the Court on examination of the plaint or the election petition ﬁ nds

that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be justiﬁ ed

that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings,

the Court need not wait for the ﬁ ling of the written statement, instead

it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the

pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the Court ﬁ nds that no

triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to reject the

election petition under Order VII Rule 11.

***

11. In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit ‘Ghorewala’ v. Rajeev Gandhi

[(1986) 4 SCC 78 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 399] this Court again reiterated

that in an election petition pleadings have to be precise, speciﬁ c and

unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose a cause of

action it should be rejected in limine. These authorities have settled

the legal position that an election petition is liable to be dismissed in

limine at the initial stage if it does not disclose any cause of action.

Cause of action in questioning the validity of election must relate to

the grounds speciﬁ ed in Section 100 of the Act. If the allegations

contained in the petition do not set out grounds of challenge as

contemplated by Section 100 of the Act and if the allegations do

not conform to the requirement of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act,

the pleadings are liable to be struck oﬀ and the election petition is

liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. A pleading if vague and

general is embarrassing. If the allegation contained in the election

petition even assuming to be true and correct do not make out any

case of corrupt practice or any ground under Section 100 of the

Act, the pleading would be unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious. It

is always open to strike out the same. If after striking out defective

pleadings the Court ﬁ nds that no cause of action remains to be

tried it would be duty bound to reject the petition under Order VII

Ride 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If a preliminary objection

is raised before the commencement of the trial, the Court is duty

bound to consider the same, it need not postpone the consideration

for subsequent stage of the trial.”

47. In Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi reported in (2001) 8 SCC 233,

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 23 and 24 has held as follows:

“23. Section 83(l)(a) of RPA, 1951 mandates that an election

petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on

which the petitioner relies. By a series of decisions of this Court, it

is well settled that the material facts required to be stated are those

facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations

made. In other words, they must be such facts as would aﬀ ord a

basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute

incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes

bad. The function of the party is to present as full a picture of the

cause of action with such further information in detail as to make

the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. (See

Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238 :

(1969) 3 SCR 603] .Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari [(1969)

2 SCC 433].) Merely quoting the words of the section like chanting

of a mantra does not amount to stating material facts. Material facts

would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of

a negative fact, if necessary. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis

[(1999) 3 SCC 737] this Court has held, on a conspectus of a series

of decisions of this Court, that material facts are such preliminary facts

which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence

of a cause of action. Failure to plead “material facts” is fatal to the

election petition and no amendment of the pleadings is permissible

to introduce such material facts after the time-limit prescribed for

ﬁ ling the election petition.

24. It is the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective

of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does

not disclose a cause of action. To enable a court to reject a plaint

on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should

look at the plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon

vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence.

No amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings. “

48. In Ram Sukh Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal reported in (2009) 10 SCC 541, the

n’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 18 has held as follows:

“18. Undoubtedly, by virtue of Section 87 of the Act, the provisions of the

Code apply to the trial of an election petition and, therefore, in the

absence of anything to the contrary in the Act, the court trying an

election petition can act in exercise of its power under the Code,

including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. The object

of both the provisions is to ensure that meaningless litigation, which is

otherwise bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy

the judicial time of the courts. If that is so in matters pertaining to

ordinary civil litigation, it must apply with greater vigour in election

matters where the pendency of an election petition is likely to inhibit

the elected representative of the people in the discharge of his public

duties for which the electorate have reposed conﬁ dence in him. The

submission, therefore, must fail.’’

Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and consequently the election petition in E.L.P.No.8

2021 is rejected. Consequently, the application in O.A.No.15 of 2022, seeking to

additional documents, is closed. No costs.

WITNESS, THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

IEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 17TH DAY OF

RCH 2022.

Sd./

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side-II

//Certiﬁ ed to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 22nd day of March 2022.

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certiﬁ ed copies of

Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

OA.Nos.764 of 2021 & 15 of

2022

ORDER

DATED: 17/03/2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

V. BHARATHIDASAN

FOR APPROVAL: 22/03/2022

APPROVED ON : 22/03/2022

Copy to:-

The Returning Oﬃ cer/Assistant

Commissioner (Excise),

200 - Bodinayakanur Assembly

Constituency, Theni District.

The Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer

State of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

The Election Commission of

India, Nirvachan Sadan,

Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

(By Order)

Mඉඔඉඡ Mඉඔඔඑඋඓ,

Principal Secretary,

Election Commission of India.

cretariat,

SATYABRATA SAHOO,

ennai-600 009,

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer and

h April, 2022.

Principal Secretary to Government,

Public (Elections) Department.

INTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATIONERY AND

PRINTING, CHENNAI ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU