[ 1 ]

DTP—V-4 Ex.(384)—1

TAMIL NADU

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 384]

CHENNAI, FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2022

Aani 24, Subakiruthu, Thiruvalluvar Aandu–2053

Part V—Section 4

Notiﬁ cations by the Election Commission of India

2022

[Price : Rs. 10.40 Paise.

NOTIFICATIONS BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Judgement of the High Court of Madras in Election Petition No. 12 of 2021

No. SRO G-32/2022.

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

Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001, dated 15th June, 2022 [25 Jyatisha, 1945 (Saka)]

is published:-

No. 82/TN-LA/ (EP 12 of 2021)/2022:- In pursuance of section 106 (b) of the

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

hereby publishes the Order of the High Court of Madras dated 28.04.2022 in

Election Petition No. 12 of 2021.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

Election Petition No. 12 of 2021

O.A. Nos. 40 & 167 of 2022

ELP No. 12 of 2021 & O.A. No. 167 of 2022:-

R. Premalatha,

W/o. Ravaneswaran,

No. 18/42, New Bungalow Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai - 600 002.

... Petitioner/Applicant

Vs.

1. Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan,

No. 1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

2. Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer of Tamil Nadu,

Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

3. Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19 Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency,

Chennai-600 014.

4. Udhayanithi Stalin. S,

No. 25/9, Chitaranjan Road,

Cenetoph 2nd Street,

Chennai-600 018.

... Respondents/Respondents

ELP No. 12 of 2021:-

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

(i) declare the acceptance of Nomination of the 4th Respondent namely S. Udhayanithi

Stalin to the No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency is not

accordance with law and illegal and the result declared as null and void (ii) declare

that the election held in No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency

is of undue inﬂ uence and not free and fair election.

OA. No. 167 OF 2022:-

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

leave to amend the form - 25 as per rule 94A ﬁ led along with the petition.

OA. No. 40 of 2022:-

Udhayanithi Stalin. S,

S/o. M.K. Stalin,

No. 25/9, Chitaranjan Road,

Cenetoph 2nd Street,

Chennai-600 018.

... Applicant/4th Respondent

Vs..

R. Premalatha,

W/o. Ravaneswaran,

No. 18/42, New Bungalow Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai-600 002.

..Respondent/Petitioner

Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan,

No. 1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer of Tamil Nadu,

Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19 - Chepauk Thiruvallikeni

Assembly Constituency,

Chennai-600 014.

...Respondents/Respondents

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

EL. OP. No. 12 of 2021.

The above Election Petition and Original Applications having been heard on

07/04/2022 in the presence of Mr. K. Sakthivel, Advocate for M/s. P. Gajendra Babu

and V.S. Narayana Rao, Advocates for the Election Petitioner/Applicant in O.A. No.167

of 2022 and for the 1st Respondent in O.A. No.40 of 2022 and of Mr. N. R. Elango,

Senior counsel for M/s. A.S. Aswin Prasanna and S. Agiliesh Kumar, advocates for the

applicant in O.A. No. 40 of 2022 and for the 4th Respondent in ELP.No.12 of 2021

& O.A. No. 167 of 2022; and upon reading the Petition, Aﬃ davit, Judges Summon

and Aﬃ davit of R. Premalatha ﬁ led in Election Petition and OA.No. 167 of 2022

and counter aﬃ davit ﬁ led in OA. No. 40 of 2022; and Judge’s Summon, Aﬃ davit of

Udhayanithi Stalin. S ﬁ led in OA. No. 40 of 2022; and this court having stood over

for consideration till this day and coming on this day before this court for orders in

the presence of the above said advocates and this Court is of a considered view

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

to triable issues and

it is ordered as follows:-

1. That the Election Petition No. 12 of 2021 be and is hereby rejected.

2. That the Original Application No. 167 of 2022 in ELP. No.12 of 2021 be and

is hereby closed.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs.

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

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 28TH

DAY OF APRIL 2022.

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side-II

//Certiﬁ ed to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 9th day of May 2022.

COURT OFFICER (O.S.)

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

Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

05/05/2022

ELP. No. 12 OF 2021

OA. Nos. 40 of 2022 & 167 of 2022

DECREE DATED: 28/04/2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

V. BHARATHIDASAN

FOR APPROVAL: 06/05/2022

APPROVED ON : 06/05/2022

Copy to:-

1. Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19, Chepauk - Thiruvellikeni

Assembly Constituency,

Chennai-600 014.

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer,

Tamil Nadu Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

The Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Election Petition No. 12 of 2021

O.A. Nos. 40 & 167 of 2022

ELP No. 12 of 2021 & OA No. 167 of 2022:-

R. Premalatha,

W/o. Ravaneswaran,

No. 18/42, New Bungalow Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai-600 002.

... Petitioner/Applicant

-VS-

1. Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan,

No. 1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

2. Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer of Tamil Nadu,

Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

3. Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency,

Chennai-600 014.

4. Udhayanithi Stalin. S,

No.25/9, Chitaranjan Road,

Cenetoph 2nd Street,

Chennai-600 018.

... Respondents/Respondents

ELP No.12 of 2021:-

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

the acceptance of Nomination of the 4th Respondent namely S. Udhayanithi Stalin

to the No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency is not accordance

with law and illegal and the result declared as null and void (ii) Declare that the

election held in No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency is of undue

inﬂ uence and not free and fair election.

OA.No. 167 OF 2022:-

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

leave to amend the form - 25 as per rule 94A ﬁ led along with the petition.

OA No. 40 of 2022:-

Udhayanithi Stalin. S,

S/o. M.K. Stalin,

No.25/9, Chitaranjan Road,

Cenetoph 2nd Street,

Chennai-600 018.

... Applicant/4th Respondent

Vs.

R. Premalatha,

W/o. Ravaneswaran,

No. 18/42, New Bungalow Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai-600 002.

..Respondent/Petitioner

Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan,

No. 1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi-110 001.

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer of Tamil Nadu,

Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19 - Chepauk - Thiruvallikeni

Assembly Constituency,

Chennai - 600 014.

...Respondents/Respondents

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

EL. OP. No. 12 of 2021.

The above Election Petition and Original Applications having been heard on

07/04/2022 in the presence of Mr. K. Sakthivel, Advocate for M/s. P. Gajendra Babu

and V.S.Narayana Rao, Advocates for the Election Petitioner/Applicant in O.A.No.167

of 2022 and for the 1st Respondent in O.A.No. 40 of 2022 and of Mr. N. R. Elango,

Senior counsel for M/s. A. S. Aswin Prasanna and S.Agiliesh Kumar, advocates for

the applicant in O.A.No. 40 of 2022 and for the 4th Respondent in ELP. No. 12

of 2021 & O.A.No. 167 of 2022; and upon reading the Petition, Aﬃ davit, Judges

Summon and Aﬃ davit of R. Premalatha ﬁ led in Election Petition and OA.No. 167

of 2022 and counter aﬃ davit ﬁ led in OA.No. 40 of 2022; and Judge’s Summon,

Aﬃ davit of Udhayanithi Stalin. S ﬁ led in OA.No. 40 of 2022; and this court having

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

for orders in the presence of the above said advocates and

the court made the following order:-

This application, has been ﬁ led under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), to reject the Election Petition

in E.L.P. No.12 of 2021. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred to as per their array in the Election Petition.

2. This application has been ﬁ led by the fourth respondent / returned

candidate, from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency.

3. The election petitioner claiming herself as an eligible elector from

Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative Assembly constituency, has ﬁ led this election

petition, (i) to declare the acceptance of nomination of the fourth respondent, namely

the petitioner in O.A.No. 40 of 2022, to the Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative

Assembly constituency, is not in accordance with law, illegal and consequently the

result declared is null and void and (ii) to declare the election held in Chepauk -

Thiruvallekeni constituency is of undue inﬂ uence and not free and fair election.

4. The brief facts leading to ﬁ ling of the election petition is that, the petitioner

is a practicing Advocate and also a voter in the above said Assembly Constituency.

In the General Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held in April, 2021,

the fourth respondent contested the election from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative

Assembly constituency as the oﬃ cial candidate of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

(in short ‘DMK’) and he was declared elected.

5. According to the election petitioner, the fourth respondent while ﬁ ling

his nomination, ﬁ led Form 26, under Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules,

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). In the above said aﬃ davit, in Column

No. 5(ii), which requires information regarding criminal case details, the fourth

respondent has stated that he ﬁ led the details in Annexure-I. In the said Annexure-I,

he has mentioned 22 criminal cases pending against him. However he has stated

‘Nil’ in Columns 3 and 4 in Para 5(ii) in Form 26. In Column (d), which requires

particulars regarding brief description of the oﬀ ence, the fourth respondent simply

stated that the cases were ﬁ led for violation of law during political agitations for public.

6. According to the election petitioner, all the 22 cases, were registered

against the fourth respondent for various oﬀ ences, however he suppressed the

same and simply stated that the cases were ﬁ led for violation of law during political

agitation for public, which is a false statement, misleads the voters and deprives

the voters right to information.

7. Further according to the election petitioner, sub-clause (i) of Section

33(A)(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Act’) requires eﬀ ectuate information in cases where cognizance were taken should

be comprehended within the area of information accessible to the voters and the

fourth respondent deliberately ﬁ led a false aﬃ davit to inﬂ uence the voters.

8. That apart, the fourth respondent has furnished incorrect and false

information in the aﬃ davit and non-disclosure of material information amounts to

violation of the Act and the Rules therein. Since there is false disclosure on the

part of the fourth respondent, which amounts to undue inﬂ uence and therefore the

election has to be declared as null and void as per Section 100(l)(a), 100(l)(b),

100(l)(d)(i) and 100(l)(d)(iv) of the Act.

9. That apart, one Mr. J.V. Mohanakrishnan, who was appointed as the

Presiding Oﬃ cer in Zonal Party No.2 was associated with the fourth respondent

and his political party and he has also written a book regarding the party to which

the fourth respondent belongs. That apart, he was teacher to the spouse of the

fourth respondent. This oﬃ cer misused/inﬂ uenced the voters and get polled to their

aﬃ liation in collusion with the booth agents appointed by these political parties. He

was under control of 10 polling booths at Chintadripet and he inﬂ uenced the oﬃ cials

directly or indirectly, threat or other means and get favoured by illegal voting. On

the above grounds, the election of the fourth respondent has to be set aside.

10. With the above allegations, the election petitioner has sought to declare

the election of the fourth respondent from Chepauk - Thiruvallekeni Legislative

Assembly constituency as null and void.

11. The fourth respondent has ﬁ led the present application, under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the election petition on the ground that though the main

allegation against the fourth respondent is that he has not disclosed the information

properly in Form 26, however it is admitted by the election petitioner herself that

the fourth respondent has disclosed all the criminal cases pending against him and

thus there is scrupulous compliance of Form 26.

12. Further, mere mentioning of ‘No’ in the tabular column in Form 26, will

in no way amounts to suppression of cases pending against the fourth respondent

and the voters have complete knowledge about the cases pending against him and

thus there is complete compliance of Section 33A of the Act.

13. It is further stated that in Form 26, Note 4, gives liberty to the candidates

to enclose separate sheets, which was preciously done in this case. As the Tabular

Column requires details of pending cases either within the Tabular Column or on

separate sheets as annexure to the form. As the fourth respondent has ﬁ led separate

sheets disclosing all the criminal cases pending against him he has strictly complied

Section 33A of the Act.

14. So far as the allegation regarding the misuse of oﬃ cial power by

one Mr. J.V. Mohanakrishnan, the allegations contained in para 22 of the election

petition is bereft of any material particulars constituting a complete cause of action

and absolutely there is no averment as to how the same has aﬀ ected the election.

The election petitioner has stated that the presiding oﬃ cer acted in collusion but

she did not specify what is the collusion and what are the things done by him. The

averments contained in para 22 is completely absent of any material particulars

and facts. Even the aﬃ davit ﬁ led by the election petitioner in Form 25 has not

disclosed the same and it is not in compliance of Form 25 and there is no averment

regarding the details of the corrupt practice which is a mandatory requirement, and it

is not in tune with Section 85 of the Act and in terms of Order VI Rule 15 of CPC.

15. That apart, it is also stated that two more election petitions were ﬁ led

with the same averments and allegations and the said election petitions are verbatim

repetition of the same set of facts. Thus, the election petitioner has not set out any

case of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, as the election

petitioner does not substantially set out any material facts on which the election

petitioner relies to challenge the election of the fourth respondent, and therefore

the election petition is liable to be rejected. That apart, each and every paragraph

of the election petition is bereft of any material particulars and facts, it does not

disclose any triable issue and no cause of action has been made out. In the said

circumstances, according to the fourth respondent, the election petition ought to be

rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

16. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent/returned candidate, would submit that the main allegation against the

fourth respondent is that, he has suppressed the vital information regarding the

criminal cases pending against him. Under Section 33-A(l)(i) & (ii) of the Act. Section

33-A(l)(i) & (ii) of the Act mandates the candidates to provide information as to

whether the candidate is an accused of any oﬀ ence punishable with imprisonment

for two year or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the

Court of competent jurisdiction and whether he has been convicted of an oﬀ ence

and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. Section 33-A only requires

the candidates to furnish information regarding cases where charges have been

framed or he has been convicted for any oﬀ ence and sentenced to imprisonment

for one year or more and does not contemplate any information regarding criminal

case pending investigation.

17. Admittedly, in the instant case, 22 criminal cases are registered against

the fourth respondent and investigation is pending, so far no ﬁ nal report has been

ﬁ led, no cognizance have been taken, and charges have not been framed by a Court

of competent jurisdiction, and he has not been convicted in any criminal case. In

such circumstances, there is no necessity for the fourth respondent to disclose the

criminal cases in which only investigation is pending. However, the fourth respondent

came forward to disclose all the 22 criminal cases pending against him and there

is no allegation that he has suppressed any of the criminal cases.

18. The other allegation against the fourth respondent is that the fourth

respondent failed to provide the details of pending criminal case against him in the

column provided in Form 26, instead he has ﬁ led a separate annexure giving details

in column 2 and 3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the appended Note,

to Form 26, provides that the candidate can ﬁ le a separate sheet in the form of

annexure disclosing criminal cases pending against them. Admittedly, the petitioner

ﬁ led separate sheets mentioning all the particulars regarding the pending criminal

cases and he has also given reason that the cases were ﬁ led for violation of law

during political agitation for public. Even though, there is no necessity on the part

of the fourth respondent to disclose the same, he has given all the details.

19. So far as the other allegation contained in para 22 of the election petition,

the averments are totally bereft of any material particulars and the averments are

too vague. Hence, according to the learned senior counsel, no case is made out to

show that the election has been materially aﬀ ected. A vague averments that non-

disclosure of information in Form 26 materially aﬀ ected the election is not suﬃ cient

without any supporting materials therein. According to the learned senior counsel, as

the election petitioner has not disclosed any cause of action and raised any triable

issue, the election petition has to be rejected at the threshold. The learned senior

counsel also relied upon number of judgments, which will be referred to in the later

part of this order.

20. Per contra, Mr.K.Sakthivel, the learned counsel appearing for the

election petitioner, would contend that, Section 33-A(l)(i) requires a candidate to

disclose all the criminal cases pending against him as speciﬁ ed in Form 26, which

contains tabular columns and the candidate is required to ﬁ ll up all the columns, but

the fourth respondent has only stated ‘Nil’ in the columns, by which, he has given

misinformation, to mislead the voters with intention to defraud the voters. Therefore,

on that ground itself, the election of the fourth respondent has to be declared null

and void and the election petition cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC.

21. Further according to the learned counsel, the averments contained

in the election petition disclose a cause of action and it cannot be rejected at the

threshold. The learned counsel also relied upon number of judgments, which will

be referred to in the later part of this order.

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

available on record carefully.

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

provisions of Section 33-A(l) of the Act, which is in violation of Section 100(l)(a),

100(l)(b), 100(l)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Act. It is stated that while ﬁ ling the nomination

an aﬃ davit has been ﬁ led under Form 26, in which, the fourth respondent did not

disclose the criminal cases pending against him. That apart, the fourth respondent

has indulged in corrupt practice by engaging one of the Presiding Oﬃ cers of the

election, who has inﬂ uenced the voters and made them to vote in favour of the

fourth respondent.

24. Before considering the issues, it would be useful to refer to the relevant

provisions of CPC, the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election

Rules,

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

hereunder:

“Order VII Rule 11 Rejection of plaint.—

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

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

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

being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be

ﬁ xed by the Court, fails to do so;

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

returned upon paper insuﬃ ciently stamped, and the plaintiﬀ , on being

required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time

to be ﬁ xed by the Court, fails to do so;

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

barred by any 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

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

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

an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp -

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

extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiﬀ . “

26.

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

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

to information, and Section 100 of the Act, speaks about the grounds for declaring

an election as void. Rule 4-A of the Rules speaks about the form of aﬃ davit to be

ﬁ led at the time of delivering nomination paper. Form 26 of the Rules speaks about

the form of aﬃ davit to be ﬁ led by the candidate along with the nomination paper.

Sections 33, 33-A and 100 of the Act and Rule 4-A and Form 26 of the Rules are

extracted below:

“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.

(2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall

not be deemed to be qualiﬁ ed to be chosen to ﬁ ll that seat unless his

nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular

caste or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to

which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be,

a Scheduled Tribe of the State.

(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,—

(a) in the case of a general election to the House of the People

(whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies),

from more than two Parliamentary constituencies;

(b) in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a

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 suchseats;

(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;

(ii) he has been convicted of an oﬀ ence [other than any oﬀ ence

referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3),

of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

(2) The candidate of 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, 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—

(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election

by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice

was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the

candidate or his election agent;

(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.”

* * *

Form 26. Aﬃ davit to be ﬁ led by the candidate along with

Nomination Paper.

“F඗කඕ 26

[See Rule 4-A]

Please aﬃ x your

recent passport

size photograph here

Aﬃ davit to be ﬁ led by the candidate along with nomination paper before the

returning oﬃ cer for election to...............................(name of the House) from ............

……………………… constituency (Name of the constituency)

PART A

I ................................................................................................... **son/daughter/

wife of ....................... Aged. ..........................................................years, resident of .

....................................................................................................... (mention full postal

address), a candidate at the above election, do hereby solemnly aﬃ rm and state

on oath as under—

(1) I am a candidate set up by …………………………. (**name of the

political party)/**am contesting as an Independent candidate.

(**Strike out whichever is not applicable)

(2) My name is enrolled in ................................................

(Name of the constituency and the State), at Serial No……….…

in Part No .........................................

(3) My contact telephone number(s) is/are.............................. and my

E-mail ID (if any) is

***

5. Pending criminal cases.-

(i) I declare that there is no pending criminal cases against me

(Tick this alternative, if there is no criminal case pending against the Candidate and

write NOT APPLICABLE against alternative (ii) below)

(ii) The following criminal cases are pending against me:

(If there are pending criminal cases against the candidate, then tick this

alternative and score oﬀ alternative (i) above, and give details of all pending cases

in the Table below)

TABLE

(a)

FIR No. with name and address of

Police Station concerned.

(b)

Case No. with Name of the Court

(c)

Section of concerned Acts/Codes

involved (give No. of the Section, e.g.,

Section ...............of IPC, etc.)

(d)

Brief description of offence

(e)

Whether charges have been framed

(Mention YES or NO)

(f)

If answer against item (e) above

is YES, then give the date on which

charges were framed

(g)

Whether any Appeal / Application

for revision has been ﬁ led against the

proceedings (Mention YES or NO)

(6) Cases of conviction.-

(i) I declare that I have not been convicted for any criminal oﬀ ence.

(Tick this alternative, if the candidate has not been convicted and write

NOT APPLICABLE against alternative (ii) below)

(ii) I have been convicted for the oﬀ ences mentioned below:

(If the candidate has been convicted, then tick this alternative and score

oﬀ alternative (i) above, and give details in the Table given below)

TABLE

(a)

Case No.

(b)

Name of the Court

(c)

Sections of Acts/Codes involved (give No. of

the Section, e.g., Section .... of IPC, etc.

(d)

Brief description of offence for which convicted

(e)

Dates of orders of conviction

(f)

Punishment imposed

(g)

Whether any Appeal has been ﬁ led against

conviction order (Mention YES or NO)

(h)

If answer to item (g) above is YES, give details

and present status of appeal

(6-A) I have given full and up-to-date information to my political party

about all pending criminal cases against me and about all cases of conviction

as given in paragraphs (5) and (6).

(Candidates to—whom this item is not applicable should clearly

write NOT APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF ENTRIES IN PARAGRAPHS 5(i) and

6(i) above.)

NOTE: 1. Details should be entered clearly and legibly in BOLD letters.

2. Details to be given separately for each case under diﬀ erent

columns against each item.

3. Details should be given in reverse chronological order, i.e.,

the latest case to be mentioned ﬁ rst and backwards in the order of dates for

the other cases.

4. Additional sheet may be added if required,

5. Candidate is responsible for supplying all information in

compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in W.P.(C)No.536 of

2011.). “ (emphasis added)

27. Now the question to be decided is, whether the fourth respondent has

violated Section 33-A of the Act and failed to disclose the criminal cases pending

against him.

28. The contention of the election petitioner is that the fourth respondent

failed to disclose the pending criminal cases in Form 26, and he has given the

details in a separate annexure. That apart, in column (d) of Form 26, gives brief

description of oﬀ ence, the fourth respondent has simply answered that, all the cases

were ﬁ led for violation of law during political agitation for public, which is not correct

and thus the fourth respondent has suppressed the information and thereby violated

Section 33-A(l)(i) of the Act.

29. It is an admitted case that, the fourth respondent have 22 criminal cases

registered against him and are pending investigation and he has also disclosed all

the 22 criminal cases in a separate annexure along with Form 26. It is also an

admitted fact that in none of the criminal cases investigation has been completed

and no ﬁ nal report has been ﬁ led and no charges have been framed by the

Court of competent jurisdiction against the fourth respondent. It is also admitted that

he was not convicted for any oﬀ ence.

30. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the fourth

respondent that since the fourth respondent is only expected to disclose particulars

regarding the cases in which charges have been framed by the Court of competent

jurisdiction, in the instant case, in none of the criminal cases registered against the

fourth respondent investigation has not been completed and ﬁ nal report has been

ﬁ led and charges are yet to be framed. In these circumstances, he is not expected

to disclose the information regarding those criminal cases.

31. The learned senior counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Satish Ukey Vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis reported

in (2019) 9 SCC 1, to support his contention and in paragraph 24, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as follows:

“24. A cumulative reading of Section 33-A of the 1951 Act and Rule

4-A of the 1961 Rules and Form 26 along with the letters dated

24-8-2012, 26-9-2012 and 26-4-2014, in our considered view, make it

amply clear that the information to be furnished under Section 33-A

of the 1951 Act includes not only information mentioned in clauses

(i) and (ii) of Section 33-A(1), but also information, that the candidate

is required to furnish, under the Act or the Rules made thereunder

and such information should be furnished in Form 26, which includes

information concerning cases in which a competent court has taken

cognizance [Entry 5(ii) of Form 26]. This is apart from and in addition

to cases in which charges have been framed for an oﬀ ence punishable

with imprisonment for two years or more or cases in which conviction

has been recorded and sentence of imprisonment for a period of

one year or more has been imposed [Entries 5(i) and 6 of Form 26

respectively]. “

32. In Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 82 and 94(4) as follows:

“82. Having stated about the need for vibrant and healthy democracy,

we think it appropriate to refer to the distinction between disqualiﬁ cation

to contest an election and the concept or conception of corrupt practice

inhered in the words ‘‘undue inﬂ uence Section 8 of the 1951 Act stipulates

that conviction under certain oﬀ ences would disqualify a person for being a

Member either of the House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or

Legislative Council of a State. We repeat at the cost of repetition unless

a person is disqualiﬁ ed under law to contest the election, he cannot be

disqualiﬁ ed to contest. But the question is when an election petition is

ﬁ led before an Election Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be,

questioning the election on the ground of practising corrupt practice by

the elected candidate on the foundation that he has not fully disclosed

the criminal cases pending against him, as required under the Act and

the Rules and the aﬃ davit that has been ﬁ led before the Returning

Oﬃ cer is false and reﬂ ects total suppression, whether such a ground

would be sustainable on the foundation of undue inﬂ uence. We may give

an example at this stage. A candidate ﬁ ling his nomination paper while

giving information swears an aﬃ davit and produces before the Returning

Oﬃ cer stating that he has been involved in a case under Section 354

IPC and does not say anything else though cognizance has been taken

or charges have been framed for the oﬀ ences under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 or oﬀ ences pertaining to rape, murder, dacoity,

smuggling, land grabbing, local enactments like the Maharashtra Control

of Organized Crime Act, 1999, UP. Control of Goondas Act, 1970,

embezzlement, attempt to murder or any other oﬀ ence which may come

within the compartment of serious or heinous oﬀ ences or corruption or

moral turpitude. It is apt to note here that when an FIR is ﬁ led a person

ﬁ ling a nomination paper may not be aware of lodgement of the FIR but

when cognizance is taken or charge is framed, he is deﬁ nitely aware of

the said situation. It is within his special knowledge. If the oﬀ ences are

not disclosed in entirety, the electorate remain in total darkness about

such information. It can be stated-with certitude that this can deﬁ nitely be

called antecedents for the limited purpose, that is, disclosure of information

to be chosen as a representative to an elected body.

***

94.4. As the candidate has the special knowledge of the pending

cases where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed

and there is a non-disclosure on his part, it would amount to undue

inﬂ uence and, therefore, the election is to be declared null and void by

the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of the 1951 Act.”

33. In the instant case, the fourth respondent has disclosed all the criminal

cases pending against him. Now the contention of the election petitioner is that

even though the fourth respondent is having 22 criminal case pending against him,

in Form 26 he has not mentioned the above criminal cases in the Form 26 itself,

instead he has ﬁ led a separate annexure. According to the learned counsel for the

election petitioner, spaces are available in the ﬁ rst three columns in Form 26, and

the fourth respondent could have mentioned the ﬁ rst three criminal cases in the

space available in Form 26 itself and the remaining criminal cases he could have

ﬁ led in a separate annexure. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be

countenanced for the reason that, a cursory perusal of Form 26, the candidate is

expected to mention the pending criminal case, FIR No. with name and address

of police station concerned. Column (a) contains three columns for enabling the

candidate to mention the pending cases. However, the Note (4) appended to Form

26, it is clearly mentioned that additional sheet may be added if required. In the

instant case, the fourth respondent is having 22 criminal cases and space provided

in Form 26 is not suﬃ cient to mention all the criminal cases, hence he ﬁ lled it in a

separate annexure and there is no illegality in it. When a candidate disclose all the

pending cases in a separate annexure, there is no necessity to ﬁ ll up the columns

provided in Form 26. Hence, the contention of the learned election petitioner in this

regard cannot be countenanced.

34. The next contention is that Column (d) of Form 26 requires brief description

of the oﬀ ence. The fourth respondent mentioned that the cases were ﬁ led for

violation of law during political agitation for public. A perusal of the criminal cases

pending against the fourth respondent, it could be seen that all the cases have been

registered against the fourth respondent while he was participating in public agitations

against the Government. In such circumstances, he brieﬂ y mentioned that the cases

have been ﬁ led for violation of law during political agitation for public and there is

no illegality or irregularity in it. Hence, considering the above circumstances, this

Court is of the view that the fourth respondent has not suppressed any information

violating the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act.

35. The next allegation with regard to corrupt practice is that, one of the election

oﬃ cial is closely related to the fourth respondent and also wrote a book on the

party in which the fourth respondent belongs and he has inﬂ uenced the voters to

vote for the fourth respondent and thereby involved in corrupt practice. The relevant

paragraph No.22 in the election petition reads as follows:

“22. The petitioner states the one Mr. J.V. Mohanakrishnan was

appointed Presiding/section oﬃ cer, in Zonal Party No. 2. His unique

no. 13074. Independent Candidate one Mr. C. Kannan raised objection,

that the said oﬃ cer was associated with the 4th respondent and his

political party. He has written book/published on Dravida Munnetra

Khazagam Youth wing. He was teacher for Krithika Udayanithi, spouse

of 4th respondent. These oﬃ cer’s misuse/inﬂ uence votes and get polled

to their aﬃ liation in collusion with agents appointed by these political

party. As for the information he was under control of 10 polling booths

at Chintadripet. The all mishaps occur mostly during in the afternoon

secession of polling, where booth agents and the oﬃ cials collide. The

major parties that rule or ruled inﬂ uence the oﬃ cials directly or indirectly,

threat or other means and get forward by illegal voting. People once

polled are not allowed to enter the booth again to verify or know the

facts. The other parties who’s candidates contest are were not able to

coupe up before these money and muscle powered parties, election

commission becomes mute spectators.”

36. It is settled law that Section 83(1 )(a) of the Act mandates that the election

petition shall contain concise statement of material facts on which the election

petitioner relies. The material facts would include positive statement of fact, which

may be proved during trial by the 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. But the averments regarding corrupt practice

absolutely there is no speciﬁ c allegation and the statements are very vague and

based on those pleadings no trial can be held.

37. The learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner would submit that

at the time of considering the application ﬁ led under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the

averments in the election petition alone has to be considered and the contention

the fourth respondent cannot be considered. To support his contention, the learned

counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Lal Sathi

Vs. Nachhattar Singh reported in 1982 AIR (SC) 1559. The learned counsel further

submitted that the petitioner failed to give complete information in the format provided

in the Statute and merely ﬁ ling Annexure amounts to non-disclosure of details. In

support of his contention, the learned counsel for the election petitioner relied upon

judgment of the High Court of Manipur in Shri Yumkham Erabot Singh Vs. Shri

Okram Henry Singh Singh in E.L.P.No.2 of 2017 dated 15.04.2021. In paragraph

44 it is held as follows:

“44. On further perusal of the Exbt.P/7 which is the Aﬃ davit dated

13/02/2017 of the Respondent No. 1 this Court found that the Respondent

No. 1 failed to disclose the details of the Criminal Case pending against

him as provided in Column No. 5 (i) particularly Special Trial Case No.

FIR No. Short description of the oﬀ ence (s) for -which charged etc. and

as such, it is not case of ﬁ lling in wrong Column but also it is the clear

case of non-disclosure of the details and complete information as per the

Format provided by the Statute.”

38. The learned counsel for the election petitioner further submitted that defect

in veriﬁ cation of an aﬃ davit ﬁ led by the election petitioner cannot be a ground to

reject the election petition. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied

upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.Manju Vs. Prajwal Revanna

alias Prajwal R. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1234.

39. As stated above, the averments in the election petition do not disclose any

triable issue. That apart, election petition did not mention how the alleged defect

materially aﬀ ected the result of the election. It is well- settled law that election

petition can be summarily rejected, if it does not furnish a complete cause of action

as required under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

40. In Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, reported in

2014 (5) SCC 312, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 15, has held as follows:-

15. This Court has consistently held that the court cannot go beyond

the pleadings of the parties. The parties have to take proper pleadings

and establish by adducing evidence that by a particular irregularity/illegality,

the result of the election has been “materially aﬀ ected”. There can be no

dispute to the settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded

on the pleadings should not be granted”. Thus, a decision of the case

should not be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. In

the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties, cannot

be considered. It is also a settled legal proposition that no party should

be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and parties are bound to take

all necessary and material facts in support of the case set up by them.

Pleadings ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are

likely to be raised and they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant

evidence before the court for its consideration. The issues arise only when

a material proposition of fact or law is aﬃ rmed by one party and denied

by the other party. Therefore, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a

court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings.”

41. In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 511,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

41. Like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section also envisages a

distinction between “material facts”and “material particulars”. Clause (a) of

sub-section (1) corresponds to Order 6 Rule 2, while clause (b) is analogous

to Order 6 Rules 4 and 6 of the Code. The distinction between “material

facts” and “material particulars” is important because diﬀ erent consequences

may ﬂ ow from a deﬁ ciency of such facts or particulars in the pleading.

Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of

action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck

oﬀ under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition

is based solely on those allegations which suﬀ er from lack of material

facts the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause

of action. In the case of a petition suﬀ ering from a deﬁ ciency of material

particulars the court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the

required particulars even after the expiry of limitation.

42. In V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, reported in (2000) 2

SCC 294, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the election petition is liable to

be dismissed, if it lacks material facts.

43. The next contention of the fourth respondent that already two election

petitions with same averments have been ﬁ led which came to be dismissed by

this Court and the present application is barred by the principles of Res Judicata.

However the said contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that even

though this election petition is verbatim repetition of the earlier two election petition,

those two election petitions have been dismissed not on merits but on technical

grounds and not ﬁ led by the petitioner, hence the principles of Res Judicata is not

applicable to the instant case.

44. Considering all the above principles and the facts and circumstances of the

instant case, this Court is of a considered view that the election petition does not

disclose a cause of action, and failed to give rise to triable issues, and therefore it

is only liable to be rejected.

45. In the result, the application in O.A.No.40 of 2022 ﬁ led under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and consequently the election petition in E.L.P.No.12 of

2021 is rejected. Consequently, the application in O.A.No.167 of 2022, seeking to

amend aﬃ davit in Form-25, is closed. No costs.

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

JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 28TH DAY OF

APRIL 2022.

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side—II

//Certiﬁ ed to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 9th day of May 2022.

COURT OFFICER (O.S.)

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

Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

06/05/2022

ELP.No.12 OF 2021

OA.Nos.40 of 2022 & 167 of 2022

DECREE DATED: 28/04/2022

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

V. BHARATHIDASAN

FOR APPROVAL: 06/05/2022

APPROVED ON : 06/05/2022

Copy to:-

1. Returning Oﬃ cer,

No. 19, Chepauk - Thiruvellikeni

Assembly Constituency,

Chennai - 600 014.

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer,

Tamil Nadu Public (Elections) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,

Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

The Election Commission of India,

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi.

(By Order)

Mඉඔඉඡ Mඉඔඔඑඋඓ,

Principal Secretary,

Election Commission of India.

Secretariat,

SATYABRATA SAHOO,

Chennai-600 009,

Chief Electoral Oﬃ cer and

08th July, 2022.

Principal Secretary to Government,

Public (Elections) Department.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATIONERY AND

PRINTING, CHENNAI ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU