SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

A.Marimuthu vs S.Chandirapriyanga on 7 February, 2020

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.02.2020

Reserved on 07.01.2020
Delivered on 07.02.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

Election Petition No.6 of 2016

A.Marimuthu ..Petitioner
vs
1.S.Chandirapriyanga

2.G.Paneerselvam

3.S.Jayaseelan

4.Anandhan

5.R.Mahendiran

6.U.Kamaraj

7.P.Mathiazhagan

8.Munisamy

9. Dhanabal

10. The Returning Officer,
Nedungadu Assembly Constituency,
Karaikal,
Puducherry Union Territory. …Respondents

(R10 struck off from the array of respondents in
ELP No.6 of 2016 as per order of this Court dated 11.09.2017
made in O.A.No.735 of 2017 in ELP 6/2016)

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

Prayer: Election Petition filed under Section 81, 100(1)(D) (III), 100 (1)(D)(IV),
101, 129, 134 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rule 2 of the
Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules 1967, to declare the election of
the first respondent as the successfully returned candidate for the 24th
Nedungadu (SC) Assembly Constituency on 19.05.2016 as null and void and to
declare the petitioner who has polled higher number of votes next to the first
respondent as elected candidate for the Nedungadu (SC) Assembly.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan for R1
R2 to R9 -Exparte

ORDER

This election petition is filed under Sections 81, 100(1)(D)(III), 100

(1)(D)(IV), 101, 129, 134 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with

Rule 2 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules 1967, seeking for the

relief of declaration to declare the election of the first respondent as a

successful returned candidate for the 24th Nedungadu (SC) Assembly

Constituency on 19.05.2016 as null and void and to declare the petitioner, who

has polled higher number of votes next to the first respondent as elected

candidate for the said Constituency. This election petition is contested by the

first respondent/returned candidate. Respondents 2 to 9, though were served

with notice, they did not appear and therefore, they were set exparte.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

He is the Member of Indian National Congress Party. He belongs to

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

Scheduled Caste Community. He contested in the Puducherry Union Territory

Legislative Assembly Elections 2016 from the Nedungadu reserved assembly

constituency. Including the petitioner and the first respondent, there were

ten candidates contested. Since the first respondent was fielded by the ruling

AINRC party, the Police and other Officers involved in the election process

turned a blind eye to the lapses and contravention of the code of conduct by

the first respondent. The first respondent had suppressed and misrepresented

several material facts in her affidavit filed under Section 33-A(1) of

Representation of the People Act, 1951. She forged certain documents to

claim her residential status inside the Union Territory of Puducherry. The first

respondent’s parents are residing within the Puducherry Union Territory. The

first respondent married one N.S.Shanmugam on 24.06.2009, who is a

permanent resident of Tamil Nadu State. After the said marriage, the first

respondent shifted her residence to Trichirappalli permanently. Hence, she is

not eligible to contest as a candidate for election at Nedungadu Assembly

Constituency.

b) Form-26 filed by the first respondent contained several

misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. Thus, it attracts

provisions under Section 125-A of the said Act. The first respondent has forged

several documents and obtained the Origin Certificate and Residence

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

Certificate to become eligible to contest in the MLA election. Therefore, she

should be having permanent residence for 5 years before the date of election

notification within the jurisdiction of Puducherry Union Territory.

c) The first respondent has given birth to one S.Pranil out of her

wedlock on 11.08.2011 and the Birth Certificate issued to the said child would

reveal that the permanent address of the first respondent at the time of birth

of the said Pranil is Plot No.29, 2nd Main Street, Murugavel Nagar, K.K.Nagar,

Trichy-1. Thus, it would reveal that as on 11.08.2011, the first respondent was

not at all residing at any place within Union Territory and she was living at

Trichy, Tamilnadu State. Hence, the first respondent is not entitled to contest

in the subject matter election in the reserved constituency. The first

respondent forged several documents using her father’s influence as Ex-Minister

and obtained Residential Certificate, which is the basis for inclusion of her

name in the electoral roll of Nedungadu Assembly Constituency.

d) The first respondent forged her Birth Certificate. Two Birth

Certificates were issued in her name. One Birth Certificate was registered by

the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Commune Panchayat, Nedungadu on

17.07.1989. On the same day, i.e.17.07.1989, the first respondent obtained

another Birth Certificate from R.B.D. Section, Puducherry Municipality. In the

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

said Certificate, the place of birth is mentioned as Maternity Hospital,

Puducherry. Hence, it is established that both Birth Certificates were issued

on the same day and inconsistent with each other and they are forged ones.

Hence, the Origin Certificate issued to the first respondent on the basis of the

forged Birth Certificates is also legally unsustainable.

e) The first respondent also obtained two Birth Certificates for her son

Pranil. One showing the place of birth as Trichy and another showing the place

of birth as Keezhaparithikudi. The first respondent’s husband’s address as per

Ration Card issued to his parent is at Trichirappalli. That Ration Card still

contains the name of the first respondent’s husband. He went on to obtain

another Ration Card at Nedungadu having address as Vadamattam Kottucheri

Commune. Hence, it is established that solely for the purpose of contesting

2016 MLA Election, the first respondent has created fictitious records to enable

herself to become eligible to contest in the MLA General Election.

f) A National Census was conducted during the year 2013 and in the

Census report, the first respondent’s residential address is given as Plot No.29,

Murugavel Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. Hence, it is

established that the permanent address of the first respondent is only at

Tiruchirappalli and not at Nedungadu.

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

g) In Form No.26, the first respondent has stated that the place of

residential house as “no” and “not applicable” in column No.4 of information of

immovable properties. The first respondent purchased one property at

Puducherry Union Territory on 16.09.2010 immediately after her marriage. In

the sale deed, her residential address was given as Kilaparuthikudi Village,

Tirunallar Taluk, Nedungadu. Hence, it is established that the first respondent

purchased property at Puducherry Union Territory stating a false residential

address and used those documents for filing an affidavit before the Returning

Officer to establish that she is having properties within the jurisdiction of

Puducherry Union Territory.

h) The first respondent cannot be deemed to be a candidate set up by

the political party, AINRC, since it failed to comply with the requirements

stipulated under election symbols (Reservation and allotment) Order 1969. As

per the said Order, Form A should be delivered to the Chief Electoral Officer

and the Returning Officer not later than 3 p.m. on the last date for making

nomination. But the first respondent failed to deliver Form A to the Returning

Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer on the last date for submitting her

nomination. Hence, her nomination became invalid.

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

i) The first respondent belongs to a caste named “Conemotto”. The

above mentioned caste is not mentioned in the schedule mentioned in the Act.

Hence, Caste Certificate issued to the first respondent itself becomes

unconstitutional and unlawful. Hence, the first respondent is not having

locustandi to contest as a candidate for the Nedungadu (SC) Assembly

Constituency.

j) The Caste Certificate dated 11.04.2016 issued to the first respondent

is unsustainable in law, since it does not contain any designation, name or seal

of issuing Authority. The competent Authority to issue Caste Certificate is

Tahsildar, Thirunallar Taluk but the said Certificate was issued to the first

respondent by Tahsildar, Karaikal Taluk Office, who is not competent. Hence,

the Caste Certificate becomes unsustainable in law and consequently, the first

respondent is not at all eligible to contest for MLA in Nedungadu Reserved

Assembly Constituency.

3. The first respondent/Returned Candidate filed a counter statement,

wherein it is stated as follows:

This respondent was elected with the margin of 1094 votes than the

petitioner herein. It is false to state that the police and other officers

involved in the election process always turned a blind eye on the lapses and

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

contravention of the code of conduct. It is false to state that this respondent

suppressed and misrepresented several material facts in her affidavit filed

under Section 33(a)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is false

to state that this respondent has forged certain documents to claim her

residential status. The father of this respondent is a native of Puducherry and

they belong to ‘Parayan’ community and origin, which is coming under the

Schedule Caste.

b) Since birth, this respondent is residing in the village of Paruthikudi,

Nedungadu, Karaikal, Puducherry. For the past 3 to 4 decades, they are

residing in the same village and therefore, there is no need to forge any

documents. On 24.06.2009, she got married with one N.S.Shanmugam, having

residence at Trichy. Even after marriage, this respondent never shifted her

residence to Trichy. Her husband migrated to Karaikal and employed at MARG

Port as Senior Engineer and till today, he is working therein. Her husband

applied for deletion of his name from the Ration Card and by an order dated

16.07.2010, his name was included to this respondent’s Ration Card.

Therefore, this respondent is eligible to contest at Nedungadu Assembly

Constituency. Only after verification of all these details, she has been issued

residence and nativity certificate.

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

c) Form 26 filed by this respondent does not contain any

misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. This respondent belongs to

Schedule Caste and origin of Puducherry. She never shifted her residence to

her husband’s native at Trichy. Due to wedlock, she gave birth to her son

named Praneel on 11.08.2011. Mere address of her husband mentioned in the

Birth Certificate does not mean that the first respondent is residing there.

Since her husband is native of Trichy and maternity delivery was attended at

Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichy, the said address was furnished. Only due to

sentimental reason, she has gone to Trichy and gave birth to her son. She

never shifted her residence to Trichy. She did not influence any official to

issue residence or nativity certificate merely because her father was Speaker

and Ex-Minister of Union Territory of Puducherry. She did not forge her Birth

Certificate. While she was born at General Hospital, Puducherry, her father

was the Deputy Speaker of Puducherry Assembly and as such, their residence

was at Beach Road, Puducherry. Her birth was duly registered at her native at

Nedungadu, within the jurisdiction of Karaikal. Absolutely, there is no legal

impediment for the said proceedings of her birth. Origin and Community

Certificate are not at all issued on the basis of Birth Certificte. Even though

there were two registration of her birth, both reveals that she was born at

General Hospital, Puducherry. Therefore, her birth as well as father’s native is

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

only at Puducherry and as such, her Community Certificate as well as the

Residence Certificate are valid. She gave birth to her son Praneel on

11.08.2011 at Lalitha Nursing Home at Trichy. She had gone to Trichy for

delivery, even though she was residing at Karaikal. Since her first delivery was

complicatory in nature and the child died after its birth, due to sentimental

reason, she was admitted at Trichy and she gave birth to her son. As such, his

birth was also registered at Karaikal on 08.09.2014 on the information

submitted by this respondent’s father. Absolutely, there is no intention to

register at two places. It has nothing to do with this respondent’s electoral

candidature, since she is the native of Puducherry. This respondent never

placed her son’s Birth Certificate to claim her residence and Community

Certificate at Puducherry.

d) It is false to state that Ration Card of this respondent’s husband still

contains his name. His name was already deleted from the said address and

included in her ration card even in the year 2010 itself. Merely his name found

in the census report as if the resident of Trichy, does not mean that she is also

the resident of the said address. There may be several circumstances not to

have husband’s residence as their matrimonial home. Therefore, it is not at all

the criteria to fix husband’s home as the domicile of wife after her marriage.

In Form No.26, the first respondent correctly mentioned as that her dependent

http://www.judis.nic.in
11

has no property and expenditure incurred for development of construction of

immovable property. In all the sale deeds, she had mentioned the same

address as No.15, Kizhaparuthikudi Village, Nedungadu, Karaikal. While

purchasing those properties, she was residing in the said address. Therefore,

she never mentioned any false residential address in those documents. She is

the permanent resident of Puducherry and origin of Puducherry by Schedule

Caste and as such, there is absolutely no circumstances warranting her to

submit any false address.

e) The first respondent was duly sponsored by her party, AINRC

Constituency to contest for the post of MLA Nedungadu (SC) Constituency and

Form A and Form B were duly signed by her party leader. Form A was

delivered to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the Returning Officer before 3

p.m. on the last day of making nominations. It is false to state that she failed

to deliver Form A to the Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer. She

submitted those documents within the time stipulated. It is false to state that

this respondent belongs to a caste by name “Conemotto” community. She

belongs to community called “Parayan” a Schedule Caste community. There is

absolutely no evidence to show that they belong to “Conemotto” community.

Even assuming that she born outside the jurisdiction of Puducherry, she is

entitled to get a residential certificate of Union Territory of Puducherry, since

http://www.judis.nic.in
12

her parents are residing in Puducherry for the past two decades. As per the

Presidential Order 1964, those who have born before 31.03.1964, have to be

treated as origin of Puducherry Schedule Caste. Therefore, her Birth

Certificate and other details issued by the concerned departments are valid.

The information obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act has nothing to do

with her eligibility or criteria to contest in the election. While applying the

residence/community certificate before the concerned officials, she had

enclosed all the proofs as required under law and after verifying all the

documents, the concerned Officials issued residential/community certificate

to this respondent. The non filling up of the blanks in the application has

nothing to do with the consideration of the said application, since she had

enclosed all the proofs.

f) The Caste Certificate was issued by the competent authority that too,

after verifying all the documents and information furnished by this respondent.

It is a copy of the caste certificate attested by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office,

Karaikal as True Copy. Therefore, it is a valid one.

g) The election petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of no

cause of action. Allegations made by the petitioner are not supported by the

documentary evidence. The election petitioner never made representation

http://www.judis.nic.in
13

before the Returning Officer to cancel the election of the first respondent.

Therefore, there is no cause of action to file the present election petition.

The application filed under the RTI Act contained completely different

allegations in respect of this respondent’s election. Only to wreck vengeance,

the election petitioner filed this election petition. In the last election i.e., in

the year 2011, the respondent’s husband duly voted in the Assembly Election

and thereafter, also in the Parliamentary Election. Therefore, without any

voter ID and residence proof, he could not have voted in the election. This

respondent’s name was never deleted from her Ration Card and her name was

never included in the husband’s Ration Card. Therefore, even assuming that

she had shifted her residence to Trichy, absolutely there is no proof that her

name was included in the Tamil Nadu Voters’ list or in her husband’s Ration

Card. Therefore, the first respondent is eligible to contest in the election to

the Nedungadu Reserved Constituency.

h) The election petitioner never raised any objections on the grounds

raised in the election petition. While scrutinising this respondent’s nomination

papers, even though sufficient time was given to file objections on the

nomination, nobody had never raised any objection including the petitioner

herein. Therefore, no cause of action arises to file this petition. The

petitioner had lost four elections as against this respondent’s father and

http://www.judis.nic.in
14

therefore, he is unable to digest winning of the MLA seat by this respondent.

Only to wreck vengeance, the election petition is filed without any ground.

Hence, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings of the respective contesting parties,

the following issues are framed for trial:

“a)Whether Origin Certificate, Residence
Certificate, Birth certificate and Ration Card obtained by
the first respondent to contest in the election are forged
documents?

b) Whether the first respondent has got a valid
Ration Card in her name at Thiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu,
showing that she is a resident of Tamilnadu and not of
Union Territory of Puducherry?

c)Whether the National Census Report shows the
first respondent residential address at Trichirapalli?

d) Whether the first respondent has made incorrect
particulars in the affidavit filed before the tenth
respondent in Form-26?

e) Whether the first respondent had failed to
deliver Form-A to the tenth respondent/Chief Electoral
Officer within the stipulated time on the last date for
making the nomination and if so, whether the first
respondent cannot be deemed to be a candidate belonging
to the political party namely AINRC?

http://www.judis.nic.in
15

f)Whether the Caste Certificate issued by the first
respondent is invalid in the eye of law and whether the
caste named as “Conemottu” is not included in the
schedule contained in Appendix-IV of the Constitution
(Puducherry) Scheduled Caste order 1964?

g) Whether all proof were placed by the first
respondent before the Election Commission and verified
and confirmed by the authorities and if so, whether
suppression of material facts do exists?

h) Whether the Birth Certificate of the child can be
the evidence for the parents to show their residential
address and if so, whether the first respondent’s parents
residence bear address in Puducherry?

i) Whether the first respondent is justified in
relying on her son’s Birth Certificate to claim her
Puducherry address to contest in Puducherry?

j) Whether the Census Report is proof of one’s
nativity or residence?

k)To what other reliefs, the Election Petitioner is
entitled to ?”

5. (a) The election petitioner examined himself as PW.1. Through him,

Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. In his chief-examination, PW.1 has deposed as

follows:

“I belong to Indian National Congress Party. I contested in
the Puducherry Assembly Election held in the year 2016 from

http://www.judis.nic.in
16

Nedungadu Assembly Constituency, reserved for S.C. I belong to
Adi-Dravidar Community, which comes under the Scheduled
Caste. I had submitted my caste certificate to the Returning
Officer. Previously, I was an M.L.A., for twice. In the said
constituency, including me, ten candidates contested. The first
respondent belongs to N.R.Congress Party. The first respondent
was allotted the symbol of ”Jug”. The community certificate and
origin certificate produced by the first respondent are not
genuine. Ex.P1 series (6 sheets) are the original letter dated
22.06.2016 issued by the Public Information Officer, Karaikal
Taluk Office, attested true copy of the application for issuance
of caste certificate, attested true copy of the origin certificate,
attested true copy of the field verification report and attested
true copy of caste certificate. The first respondent is not
permanently residing in Puducherry. Witness Adds: She resides in
Trichy. The first respondent was given in marriage to one
Mr.Shanmugam, resident of K.K.Nagar-Murugavel Nagar, Trichy.
Ex.P2 is the marriage invitation for the marriage took place
between the first respondent and Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam. The
first respondent obtained two birth certificates. Ex.P3 is the
original birth certificate in respect of the first respondent dated
25.05.2016. Ex.P4 is the original birth certificate in respect of
the first respondent dated 26.05.2016. The first respondent has
two children. The name of the first child of the first respondent
is Praneel. For the aforesaid Praneel also, two birth certificates
were obtained. Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the birth certificate of
the aforementioned Praneel, dated 08.09.2014. Ex.P6 is the
original birth certificate of the aforesaid Praneel, dated
29.09.2014. The first respondent has family card in Puducherry.
Ex.P7 is the photocopy of the family card in respect of the family
of the first respondent, bearing Serial No.190517. The name of
the first respondent finds a place in Ex.P7. As per the census
report, the first respondent resides in Trichy. Ex.P8 is the
photocopy of the census report (learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent objected to mark this document as exhibit
stating that there is no reference in the document from where it
has been obtained). Ex.P9 (series) are the original letter, dated
06.06.2016, issued by the Returning Officer-IX, Karaikkal,
certified copies of Form-20 and Form-26. I had obtained the
affidavit filed by the first respondent before the Returning
Officer. Ex.P10 is the photocopy of the affidavit filed by the first

http://www.judis.nic.in
17

respondent before the Returning Officer (learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent objected to mark this
document as exhibit stating that this document has not been
downloaded from the website of the Election Commission and
that the Website address mentioned in the document is not that
of the Election Commission). The first respondent did not submit
Form-A within time on the last date of filing of the nomination
i.e., on 29.04.2016. The community certificate in respect of the
first respondent was not issued in a proper manner. The first
respondent had purchased properties in Puducherry. Ex.P11 is
the photocopy of the sale deed dated 13.07.2015 executed in
favour of the first respondent in respect of the property situated
at Kallikudi-South village, Tiruchirappalli District. Ex.P12 is the
photocopy of the absolute sale deed dated 24.07.2015 executed
in favour of the husband of the first respondent in respect of the
property situated at No.69, Periyanayaki Chathiram Village,
Tiruchirappalli District. Ex.P13 (series- 2 Nos.) are the certified
copies of the sale deeds, both executed in favour of the first
respondent, dated 12.02.2014 and 16.09.2010. Ex.P14 is the
certified copy of the sale deed dated 04.10.2007 executed in
favour of the first respondent in respect of the property situated
at Nedungadu village, comes under the jurisdiction of the
Registration District of Puducherry. Ex.P15 is the photocopy of
the voter’s information in respect of the first respondent bearing
EPIC No.SJU0023846. Ex.P16 is the photocopy of the declaration
of the result of the election in Form-21- C in respect of the
Nedungadu Assembly Constituency. I have given representation
against the result declared in respect of the Nedungadu Assembly
Constituency. Ex.P17 is the office copy of my representation
dated 20.05.2016 addressed to the Chief Election Officer,
Puducherry. Ex.P18 is the photocopy of the reply given by the
Returning Officer-IX, Karaikkal, dated 25.05.2016 in response to
my representation (Ex.P17). I secured 7695 votes in the election
conducted for the Nedungadu Assembly Constituency in the year
2016. Ex.P19 is the statement containing votes secured by the
candidates (Trends at a glance) in respect of General Elections to
Puducherry Legislative Assembly-2016. Ex.P20 is an article
published in weekly Tamil News Paper viz., “Seidhi Oli” for the
week May 04-10, 2016. I have filed this election petition to
declare the election of the first respondent as null and void.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
18

He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/

returned candidate. In his cross examination, he has deposed as follows:

“At the time of scrutiny of nominations, not only myself,
but also all the other eight candidates had submitted our
objections to the Returning Officer. I have not filed any
document in writing before the Hon’ble Court to show that I have
given objections to the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny
of the nomination papers. I know the father of the 1st
respondent. The father and mother of the 1st respondent are not
belonging to the caste mentioned in the caste certificate marked
as Ex.P1 series. Witness adds that I recently came to know that
they belong to the caste “Conemotto”. I have not filed any
document in this petition to show that the 1st respondent
belongs to a different caste. It is correct to state that in Ex. P2,
the address of the first respondent is mentioned as “Nedungadu,
Karaikkal”. It is correct to state that what is mentioned in Ex.P2,
is the place of birth of the 1st respondent. Witness further adds
that the 1st respondent resides at Kizhaparuthikudi, Pondicherry;
that as per records, the 1st respondent was born in the maternity
hospital, Pondicherry and that her birth was also registered at
Nedungadu. I am aware that the birth will be registered based on
the information given by the hospital, in which the child will be
born. It is correct to state that in Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, the only
difference is with regard to the residential address and that
apart, all other particulars including place of birth entered
therein are similar. It is correct to state that at the time of birth
of the 1st respondent, the father of the 1st respondent was a
Minister in the Pondicherry Government. It is also correct to
state that only because of his official position, he was residing at
Pondicherry, which is why the address in the birth certificate,
Ex.P4, is mentioned as “Beach Road, Pondicherry”. The 1st
respondent is a voter only in Trichy constituency and not in
Nedungadu constituency. It is incorrect to state that the 1st
respondent had submitted her electoral identity card along with
her nomination papers. It is correct to state that in Ex.P7, Family
card, the caste of the 1st respondent is mentioned. It is correct
to state that Ex.P7 was downloaded from Internet on 31.05.2016.

It is correct to state that in Ex.P7 also, the address of the 1st
respondent is mentioned as “Paruthikudi, Nedungadu”. It is

http://www.judis.nic.in
19

correct to state that in Ex.P8, there is no information to the
extent as from where, from whom and on which date it was
obtained. It is incorrect to state that Ex.P8 is not a census
report. Witness adds that in Ex.P8, mobile number of the 1st
respondent, mobile numbers of her husband and father-in-law
and her residential address i.e., “Murugavel Nagar 2nd Main
Road, K.K.Nagar, Trichirapalli-29”, are clearly mentioned. It is
incorrect to state that based on the census report, electoral
identity card will not be issued. It is incorrect to state that the
1st respondent’s name finds a place in Pondicherry electoral roll.
Witness adds that her name is also available in Trichy electoral
roll. It is incorrect to state that the 1st respondent’s name is not
available in the electoral roll of Trichy and that I have not
mentioned in my election petition that her name is available in
Trichy electoral roll. I have not filed any proof to show that the
1st respondent is a voter in Trichy constituency. It is correct
to state that in Ex.P10, the name of the 1st respondent is
available as a voter in the voters list under Srl.No.1016 of
Nedungadu constituency. It is incorrect to state that the 1st
respondent had submitted her affidavit on time and that I have
falsely stated in my petition that the 1st respondent did not
submit her affidavit on time. It is incorrect to state that in
Ex.P10, the 1st respondent has correctly mentioned the assets
owned by her. I have submitted an affidavit along with this
election petition to the effect that the 1st respondent had not
submitted the correct particulars along with her nomination
papers. I deny the suggestion that I have not filed the affidavit
along with this election petition stating the properties owned by
the 1st respondent, therefore, this election petition is not
maintainable. It is correct to state that in Ex.P15, it is mentioned
that the 1st respondent is a voter in Nedungadu constituency. It
is correct to state that in Ex.P12, the address of the buyer,
namely Shanmugam, the husband of the 1st respondent, is
mentioned as Kizhaparuthikudi, Nedungkadu. Witness adds that
the address of the buyer in Ex.P12 is incorrect. It is correct to
state that in Ex.P11 also, the address of the buyer namely,
Mrs.Chandra Priyanka, the 1st respondent herein, is mentioned as
Kizhaparuthikudi, Nedungkadu. Witness adds that even this
address is wrong. It is incorrect to state the contents of my
complaint given to the Chief Election Officer and the averments
in my election petition are totally contrary to each other. It is

http://www.judis.nic.in
20

correct to state that in my complaint, Ex.P17, I have not stated
that the 1st respondent is not a voter in the Pondicherry
constituency. It is incorrect to state that this election petition is
an outcome of after thought. It is incorrect to state that the
husband of the 1st respondent got transferred to Karaikkal from
Trichy and that he has been working in Karaikkal. It is incorrect
to state that the name of the husband of the 1st respondent was
removed from the family card at Trichy and that his name was
included in the 1st respondent’s family card at Karaikkal. I deny
the suggestion that I have filed this election petition based on
false information. It is incorrect to state that Ex.P20, “seithivoli”
weekly paper, is not at all in circulation and that it has been
fabricated by me only for the purpose of this case. Witness adds
that an article in “Seithivoli” weekly paper was published,
wherein it is stated that the 1st respondent had been contesting
elections using forged documents; that despite the said news
article, the 1st respondent, without responding to the said news
article, contested in the election and that the 1st respondent had
not raised any objection even after publication of the said news
article. It is incorrect to state that the reasons put-forth by me
in my election petition, do not affect the election result
concerning the 1st respondent.”

(b) The Returning Officer of Nedungadu (SC) Assembly Constituency was

examined as P.W.2. Through him, Exs.P21 and P22 were marked. In his chief

examination, PW.2 has deposed as follows:

“I joined government service in Puducherry in 1978 as
Lower Division Clerk (LDC). I retired from service on 30.06.2017.
The election to the Puducherry Assembly Constituency was held
on 16.05.2016. At the time of election, I was Deputy Secretary-

Establishment in the Secretariat of Puducherry Government. I
was the Returning Officer-IX in Nedungadu (SC) Assembly
Constituency. I was appointed as Returning Officer by the Chief
Election Officer, Puducherry. Since I was appointed as Returning
Officer just prior to filing of nomination papers, I did not attend

http://www.judis.nic.in
21

the training conducted by the Election Department. Form 26 is a
nomination form, along with which, property statement, caste
certificate, birth certificate, affidavit and bank account
statement have to be filed. Ex.P9 (Series) is the Form 26 filed by
the first respondent. I accepted the said nomination based on
Form A and Form B issued by the party, All India NR Congress for
the said candidate. Form A is issued by the party President
authorising their party functionary to issue the Form B to the
candidate. Form B is issued by such party functionary nominating
the candidate from their party. Form A and Form B have to be
submitted by 03:00 p.m. on 29.04.2016, which was the last date
for filing nomination. Form A and Form B in respect of the first
respondent was submitted at 01.50 p.m. on 29.04.2016. Ex.P21
(now marked) is the original letter dated 25.08.2016 issued by
the Joint Chief Electoral Officer to the Petitioner. It is stated in
Ex.P21 that Form A and Form B in respect of the first respondent
was not submitted within the stipulated time. The statement
made in Ex.P21 in paragraph-3 that Form A and Form B were not
submitted on 29.04.2016 is wrong. That statement in Ex.P21 is
erroneous. Ex.P21 may have been issued by the Joint Chief
Electoral Officer based on the documents sent by me by fax to
the Chief Electoral Officer on the same day. Ex.P22 (now
marked) is the photocopy of the Checklist annexed to Form 26.
(original produced, verified and compared with the photocopy
and original returned to the Department staff). On the basis of
Ex.P22 Checklist, I have stated that Form A and Form B were
submitted along with Form 26 at 01:50 p.m. on 29.04.2016. Since
there is no entry with regard to ‘no documents due’ found in
Ex.P22, I am stating that Form A and Form B were submitted at
01.50 p.m. on 29.04.2016. The witness adds: the date and time
that is 29.04.2016 and 01.50 p.m have been recorded in Ex.P22.
Form A and Form B have to be submitted to the Returning
Officer. Even the affidavit has to be submitted along with the
documents with the nomination papers. We receive the entire set
of nomination papers and check it and accept it. On receipt of
nomination papers along with connected documents, I have not
put my signatures on each and every papers including Form A
and Form B. We receive the nomination papers along with
connected documents and we assign a nomination number to each
nomination. Subsequently, we assign page numbers continuously
in the nomination papers. It is a possibility that Form A and

http://www.judis.nic.in
22

Form B can be inserted later on, but it was not done so in this
case. The statement of the Joint Chief Electoral Officer in Ex.P21
that they did not receive Form A and Form B within the time on
29.04.2016 would be because one copy of Form A and Form B
would be submitted to Chief Electoral Officer and they might
have received it late and one copy would be submitted to the
Returning Officer. But I received Form A and Form B in time. I
do not know on what basis Ex.P21 letter has been issued. The
caste certificate and origin certificate in respect of the first
respondent were filed along with nomination papers and I
satisfied with the same since they were issued by the competent
authorities and it was also not objected at the time of scrutiny.
The affidavit in Form 26 in Ex.P9 is accepted by us as it is.
Unless and otherwise objections raised with regard to a
particular nomination papers, we would accept the same. The
time limit stipulated for submission of Form A and Form B under
para-13 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment)
Order, 1968 is mandatory. After the submission of nomination
papers, the Returning Officer has to check whether all the forms
prescribed as per the Rules had been submitted or not and
whether the certificates from the competent authorities had
been submitted or not. In case, anything is left out, the
Returning Officer has to intimate the concerned candidate in
writing to submit the same within the stipulated time. The
candidates also have to take oath in the name of God and submit
a signed declaration thereof. Also, we check whether Form A
and Form B have been submitted from the party. We do not
verify the veracity and truthfulness of the documents submitted
along with nomination papers. On the day of scrutiny, we call all
the candidates who have submitted nominations and we declare
the number of nominations received, the records submitted by
the candidates and the number of nominations found to be in
order. We also declare to the candidates that if they have any
objection with regard to any nomination, they can raise the
same. If any objection is raised by any candidate, we record the
same and scrutinize the papers and make a summary enquiry and
record a proceeding. As soon as we receive nomination papers
along with connected documents we put up the copies of the
same in our office notice board and in the website of the
Election Commission and send the same to the Chief Electoral
Officer by fax. The nomination received on the last day would

http://www.judis.nic.in
23

be put up in the notice board as well as in the website of the
Election Commission and to the Chief Electoral Officer on the
very same evening. It is mandatory to submit Form A to the Chief
Electoral Officer. I am not aware whether the time limit
prescribed for submission of Form A applies for submission of the
same to the Chief Electoral Officer.”

He was not cross examined by the first respondent.

(c) The then Deputy Director, Department of Civil Supplies, Government

of Puducherry, was examined as P.W.3. In his chief examination, he has

deposed as follows:

“I was working as Deputy Director, Department of Civil
Supplies, Govt. of Puducherry. As Deputy Director of the
Department of Civil Supplies, my job was to issue family cards.
When I was working so, I did not know about the first respondent
viz., Chandrapriyanga. I know the father of Chandrapriyanga. His
name is Chandrakasu. He was a Minister in Puducherry
Government and he died. He was a Minister for several
Departments, but I do not know exactly the portfolio he held. I
do not know about the marriage of the first respondent
Chandrapriyanga. I did not see the marriage invitation (Ex.P2)
during my tenure. I do not know whether the first respondent
was a continuous resident of Puducherry or she shifted her
residence after her marriage. I do not know whether the family
card under Ex.P7 was issued by the Department of Civil Supplies,
Puducherry. The name of the first respondent finds a place in
Ex.P7. The name of the husband of the first respondent does not
find a place in Ex.P7. I do not know exactly when the Family card
(Ex.P7) was issued. Witness adds: family cards are issued once in
5 years or 10 years; to my remembrance, for the last time,
family cards were issued in the year 2005. I do not know whether
the web site address found at the top of Ex.P7 is the official
website address of the Department of Civil Supplies, Puducherry.

When I was working for the Government of Puducherry, I took

http://www.judis.nic.in
24

census in 2011. I only remember that I had collected data, but I
do not know in which form Census Report would be prepared. In
Ex.P8, the name of the first respondent is mentioned. In Ex.P8,
the address of the first respondent is mentioned as Murugavel
nagar, 2nd main road, Trichirapalli, Tamilnadu. In Form-26
marked as Ex.P9 series, the address of the first respondent is
mentioned as Door No.38, Kuber Nagar, Vadamattam Road,
Kottuchery, Karaikal District. I am not aware of the norms in
filing nomination papers before the Election Commission. If any
person marries and settles outside puducherry, he or she cannot
be a voter in Puducherry.”

He was not cross examined by the 1st respondent.

(d) The then Commissioner of Commune Panchayat, Negungadu, was

examined as P.W.4. In his chief examination, he has deposed as follows:

“I have been working as Assistant in the Department of
Animal Welfare, Karaikal, from 01.10.2016. From 01.08.2013 to
30.09.2016, I was working as Commissioner, Commune Panchayat,
Nedungadu, on deputation. I was also the Registrar of Birth and
Death, Commune Panchayat, Nedungadu during the said period.
Ex.P3 was issued by me. Ex.P3 is the Birth Certificate issued for
the birth of Chandrapriyanga. The date of birth of
Chandrapriyanga is mentioned as 11.07.1989 in Ex.P3. In Ex.P3,
the place of birth is mentioned as Paruthikudi. The registration
number assigned to Ex.P3 is N198900106. Ex.P3 was issued on
25.05.2016. Ex.P4 is the Birth Certificate issued for the birth of
Chandrapriyanga, by the Government of Puducherry. Ex.P4 was
issued by the Registrar, No.1, Rue Dumas, Puducherry – 605 001.

In Ex.P4, the date of birth of Chandrapriyanga is mentioned as
11.07.1989 and the place of birth is mentioned as Maternity
Hospital, Pondicherry and the father’s address is mentioned as
Beach Road, Pondicherry. The Registration number assigned to
Ex.P4 is M198905506. The date of issue of Ex.P4 is mentioned, in
Ex.P4, as 26.05.2016. The date of registration of birth is
mentioned as 17.07.1989 in Ex.P4. The date of registration of
birth mentioned in Ex.P3 is 17.07.1989. I did not register the

http://www.judis.nic.in
25

birth of Chandrapriyanga. I only issued an extract of the birth
certificate from the records available in my office, when I
assumed charge in 2013. I do not know who was the birth
registering officer on 17.07.1989, i.e., the date of registration of
birth under Ex.P3. Issuing two birth certificates for a single
person at different places is wrong. Ex.P5 is the birth certificate
in respect of son of Chandrapriyanga, viz., Praneel. The extract
of the birth certificate of Praneel (Ex.P5) was issued by me. In
Ex.P5, the date of birth is mentioned as 11.08.2011, the place of
birth is mentioned as Keelparuthikudi. The registration number
mentioned in Ex.P5 is N201100001 and the date of registration
mentioned is 25.08.2011. The copy of Ex.P5 was issued by me
based on the records available in the office. Ex.P6 is the Birth
Certificate, issued in respect of Praneel, by the Registrar of Birth
and Death, Head Quarters, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation. In
Ex.P6, the date of birth is mentioned as 11.08.2011, the place of
birth is mentioned as Lalitha Nursing Home, B2(S), 10th A Cross,
Thillai Nagar, Trichirapalli. The Registration Number of Ex.P6 is
2141/2011/56. In Ex.P5, the address of the father of the child is
mentioned as No.29, Second Main road, Murugavel Nagar,
K.K.Nagar, Trichy-21. The permanent address of the father of
the child is also mentioned as No.29, Second Main Road,
Murugavel Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Trichy-21, in Ex.P6. I do not know
as to which one is genuine out of the two birth certificates issued
in respect of Chandrapriyanga and her son Praneel. In the
affidavit marked as Ex.P9 series, the address of the first
respondent is mentioned as Puducherry; in Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, the
address of the first respondent is mentioned as Puducherry and
Trichirapalli respectively; I do not know which address is correct
and I had only issued copies of birth certificates based on the
records available in the office. I have no connection with the
family card – Ex.P7. At the time of registration of the birth of
Chandrapriyanga and her son Praneel, I was not holding the
office concerned, therefore, I do not know about their
genuineness. ”

He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. In

his cross – examination, he has stated as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in
26

“It is correct to state that birth of any child will be
registered based on the information received from the hospital
also. ”

(e) The then Tahsildar, Karaikal, was examined as P.W.5. In his

deposition, he has stated as follows:

“At present, I am working as a Tahsildar, Karaikal since
February 2016. The information in Ex.P1 was furnished by me
along with connected documents. The copies of the documents
annexed in Ex.P1 were furnished out of our office copies. The
Ex.P1 also contains the copy of the application submitted by the
first respondent for issue of origin and caste certificate. The
above said application submitted by the first respondent is
incomplete. Based on the said application, resident certificate
was issued. The first respondent has not furnished the
information in the said application as to how long she is residing
there. The first respondent has not stated the purpose for which
she has submitted the said application. The declaration in the
said application is also not filled up by the first respondent. The
above said application was submitted to the concerned VAO,
though it is addressed to the Tahsildar, Thirunallar. Though the
said application was submitted to the concerned VAO,
Nedunkadu, Thirunallaru Taluk, the VAO reported that the
application is not residing in the said place and therefore, he
forwarded the same to Karaikal. The verification was done by
the VAO, Kottucheri and the Revenue Inspector, Kottucheri. The
VAO, Kottucheri and the Revenue Inspector, Kottucheri have
made their recommendations in Ex.P1. Those recommendations
are proper. There are several corrections in the report of the
VAO and the Revenue Inspector, Kottucheri and the same are not
counter signed by them. Based on the recommendations by the
above said VAO and Revenue Inspector, I issued Caste Certificate.

The report submitted by the VAO, Nedunkadu, Thirunallar Taluk,
is also in Ex.P1. The VAO, Nedunkadu, Thirunallar Taluk, may

http://www.judis.nic.in
27

have submitted a report based on field verification and he is not
working under me. The Caste Certificate in Ex.P1 was issued by
me. The Caste Certificate in Ex.P1 do not bear the name,
designation and seal of the issuing authority. The Caste
Certificate in Ex.P1 issued by me was based on the
recommendations of the VAO and the Revenue Inspector working
under my control and the same is found in Ex.P1. Ex.P7 is a
family ration card. In Ex.P7, the name of the first respondent
Chandrapriyanga finds place. Her husband’s name Shanmugam do
not finds place in Ex.P7. I am aware that the first respondent is
married. I do not know as to where the marriage of the first
respondent with Shanmugam took place. I do not know as to
whether Shanmugam’s residence as per the Census report is
Tiruchirapalli. If the residence of Shanmugam is Tiruchirapalli,
then the name of the first respondent Chandirapriyanga should
have been removed from the ration card in Ex.P7. Ex.P15 is the
voter’s information pertaining to the first respondent in respect
of Nedunkadu Assembly Constituency. If the first respondent has
shifted her residence, she would have applied for change of
residence in the electoral list. At the time of filed verification
done by the VAO and the Revenue Inspector, they would visit the
applicant’s house and would enquire as to whether the applicant
is married or not and whether the applicant has shifted her
residence or not. Along with the recommendations, the VAO and
the Revenue Inspector would enclose the applicant’s Voter ID
card, ration card, educational certificates and birth proof.
However, the same have not been furnished in Ex.P1. In the
recommendation of the VAO and the Revenue Inspector, there is
no information as to whether the applicant married or not and
after marriage, whether she shifted her residence to her
husband’s place. I do not know the residence of Shanmugam,
husband of the first respondent.”

He was not cross examined by the 1st respondent.

(f) The then Tahsildar, Thirunallar, was examined as PW.6. In his chief

examination, he has deposed as follows:

http://www.judis.nic.in
28

“I am working as a Tahsildar, Thirunallar from 16.02.2016.
The application for issue of origin and caste certificate was
submitted to me by the first respondent. The said application is
not proper and is incomplete. The first respondent’s address in
the said application has been erased by using correction fluid.
The first respondent has not stated in the said application as to
for how long she is residing in Karaikal. The first respondent has
to mention her annual income, but she has not stated he the
same. The first respondent has not stated in the said application
the reason for applying for Caste Certificate. She has not filled
up the declaration in the said application. The said application
ought to have been corrected, but the same was not corrected.
Accepting the incomplete application for issue of Caste and
Original Certificate is not proper. The above said application
was first submitted to me and I forwarded the same to the VAO,
Nedunkadu. The Origin and Caste Certificate was issued by the
Tahsildar, Karaikal. Since the first respondent’s address was not
within my jurisdiction, the certificate was issued by the
Tahsildar, Karaikal. The Previous Report in Ex.P1 was issued by
the VAO, Nedunkadu, who is working under my control. The VAO,
Nedunkadu has submitted the Previous Report to the Tahsildar,
Karaikal without obtaining my counter signature. I entertained
the application for issue of origin and caste certificate of the
first respondent though her residence was not within my
jurisdiction, because she was residing in my jurisdiction
previously. At the time of issuance of family ration card in
Ex.P1, the first respondent’s residence was within my
jurisdiction. I am aware that the first respondent was married. I
do not know as to where she got married. I know the first
respondent husband’s name and his name is Shanmugam. I do not
know as to from which place, Shanmugam hails from. I know the
first respondent’s father and mother. I do not know as to
whether the first respondent shifted her residence after her
marriage to her husband’s place. The first respondent’s name
should have been removed from Ex.P7-Ration Card after her
marriage and if she had shifted to her husband’s place. Similarly,
her name should have been removed from the voters’ list of
Nedunkadu Assembly Constituency.”

He was cross examined by the 1st respondent. In his cross examination,

http://www.judis.nic.in
29

he has deposed as follows:

“The application for issue of origin and caste certificate in
Ex.P1 is not original. By seeing the original of the said
application, if there are any corrections, the same would be
found. It is correct to state that only by seeing the original, I
can say whether correction fluid was applied on the address of
the first respondent in the said application in Ex.P1. In the said
application, there is no correction on the Nedunkadu address of
the first respondent. For obtaining caste certificate, what are all
information required finds place in the said application. The first
respondent’s father’s monthly income has been mentioned in the
said application.”

He was re-examined by the learned counsel for the election petitioner.

In his re-examination, he has deposed as follows:

“The above said application in Ex.P1 has been certified as
True copy by the Tahsildar, Karaikal. The documents in Ex.P1 has
been issued by the Tahsildar, Karaikal, under Right to
Information Act and not by me.”

(g) The Chief Electoral Officer, Puducherry, was examined as PW.7. In

his chief examination, he has deposed as follows:

“I am, at present, working as Chief Electoral Officer,
Puducherry and also as Secretary (in-charge) for Finance and
Health Department, Govt. of Puducherry. Assembly Elections in
Puducherry were held on 16.05.2016. As the Chief Electoral
Officer, my job was to coordinate with the District Electoral
Officer and Returning Officer in conduct of elections for various
constituencies in Puducherry, and I was also acting as link
between the Election Commission of India and various election
conducting authorities. Returning Officer is the authority for
conducting elections. Ex.P21-letter was issued by the office of
the Chief Electoral Officer, signed by the Joint Chief Electoral
Officer. Form A is a form prescribed for a recognised political

http://www.judis.nic.in
30

party to indicate party authority, who can nominate candidates
for contesting election under the party’s name and symbol. Form
B is a form prescribed for furnishing name of the candidates,
nominated by the political party, for contesting election. The
time limit prescribed for submission of Forms A and B was, not
later than 3 p.m. on the last day of nomination. Form A has to
be sent to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer by 3 p.m. on
the last day of nomination. Forms A and B in respect of the first
respondent, were not received by my office before the time
stipulated. However, a letter dated 29.04.2016 (received by my
office on 30.04.2016) was submitted to our office stating that
Forms A and B were submitted by the first respondent to the
Returning Officer before the time stipulated. On receipt of
nomination papers, the Returning Officer would mention the
date and time of receipt of the nomination papers, in the
nomination papers. My function was to coordinate the conduct of
election.”

He was not cross examined by the 1st respondent.

(h) The Sanitary Officer, Trichy Municipal Corporation, was examined as

P.W.8. In his chief examination, he has deposed as follows:

“I am, at present, working as Sanitary Officer, Trichy
Municipal Corporation. From the date of my appointment till
2016, I was working as Registrar of Births and Deaths,
Tiruchirapalli. Ex.P6 was not issued by me. Ex.P6 was issued by
the Registrar of Births and Deaths at Headquarters, who was
keeping the records. The records were sent by me only. In Ex.P6,
names of parents are mentioned as “Shanmugam and
Chandrapriya”. I do not know whether the child mentioned in
Ex.P6 was born in the permanent residential address/address of
parents at the time of birth, mentioned therein. The details in
Ex.P6 were recorded as per the information furnished by the
Hospital Authorities at Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichirapalli,
where the child was born. Only the parents of the child would
furnish to the hospital authorities, the details regarding the
permanent address of the parents and address of the parents at

http://www.judis.nic.in
31

the time of birth.”

He was not cross examined by the 1st respondent.

(i) The then Assistant Commissioner, Trichy Corporation Ponmalai Zone,

was examined as P.W.9. Through him, Ex.P23 was marked. In his chief

examination, he has deposed as follows:

“I am, now, working as Assistant Commissioner, Trichy
Corporation, Ponmalai Zone. In 2011, when census took place, I
was working as Assistant Commissioner (Personnel), Trichy
Corporation. I was, in no way, involved in census took place in
2011. I was not working as Charge Census Officer in 2011. I have
brought the available relevant records concerning census data to
this Hon’ble Court today, in connection with this petition. Ex.P23
is the certified true extract of National Population Register
concerning Block No.0156, Ward No.0038 of Tiruchirapalli
Municipal Corporation. As per Ex.P23, the present address of the
first respondent at the time of census was “flat No.29, Murugavel
Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu, Pin 620 021”. It
was recorded by the Census Enumerator by name C.Beula
Florance.

He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. In

his cross examination, he has deposed as follows:

“I have brought the summons received by me from this
Hon’ble Court. Ex.R1 is the original summons received by me. It
is correct to state that in Ex.R1-summons, I was not asked to
bring any records. I deny the suggestion that I have brought
Ex.P23 to this court only at the request of the petitioner.
Witness adds:- I do not know the petitioner. I have not verified
whether the contents found in Ex.P23 are true or not.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
32

He was re-examined by the learned counsel for the election petitioner.

Though him, Ex.R1 summons were marked. In his re-examination, he has

deposed as follows:

“In Ex.R1-summons, the first document is mentioned as
“Ex.P8- Extract of Census Report in respect of the first
respondent”. Ex.P23, produced by me today, is connected to
census report.”

6. (a) The contesting 1st respondent/returned candidate examined

herself as R.W.1. Through her, Exs.R2 to R8 were marked. In her chief

examination, she has deposed as follows:

“I had contested in Puducherry Assembly Elections held in
the year 2016 from Nedungadu Constituency on the ticket of NR
Congress Party. Nedungadu Constituency is a reserved
constituency. My father was a politician for about 40 years. He
contested from the same constituency six times, out of which, he
won 4 times and lost twice. My father was holding the post of
Deputy Speaker, Speaker and Minister in the Government of
Pondicherry. My native place is Paruthikudi, Nedungadu. I was
born in the year 1989 and my father was Deputy Speaker then. As
per the birth certificate submitted to the school in which I
studied, I was born at Paruthikudi, Nedungadu. But in the
election petition, it is stated that I was born in the Government
Hospital at Pondicherry. I am not aware of the birth certificate
filed along with this election petition, in which it has been
mentioned that I was born in Pondicherry. Ex.P3 (Birth
Certificate) is my birth certificate, wherein my name is correctly
mentioned as “Chandirapriyanga”. Ex.P3 was the certificate
submitted to my school and used for all the official purposes. I
got married in Karaikal in the year 2009. At the time of my
marriage, my husband was working in Bangalore. My husband’s
native place is Trichy. My father-in-law was Deputy
Superintendent of Police. After my marriage, my husband got a

http://www.judis.nic.in
33

job in Marg Port at Karaikal. Therefore, we were residing in
Karaikal. The contention in the election petition that I was
residing in Trichy, is incorrect. Since I am the only daughter of
my father, my father allowed us to stay separately at Karaikal.
After our marriage, the name of my husband was included in my
family ration card. Ex.R2 (3 sheets) is the photocopy of my
duplicate family ration card bearing Serial No.223776, issued by
the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,
Government of Pondicherry (marked after comparing and
verifying with the original). Ex.R3 is the photocopy of my
electoral identity card bearing No. SJU0023846 (marked after
comparing and verifying with the original). Ex.R4 is the
photocopy of my Aadhar Card bearing No. 415373277277 (marked
after comparing and verifying with the original). Ex.R5 is the
photocopy of the electoral identity card of my husband
Shanmugam bearing No. SJU0023853 (marked after comparing
and verifying with the original). Ex.R6 is the photocopy of the
Aadhar card of my husband bearing No. 690137364767 (marked
after comparing and verifying with the original). I begot three
children. My first child was born in March 2010 in Karaikal. A day
after his birth, he died due to the mistake committed by the
Doctors. My second child Praneel was born in the year 2011 and
my third child Stalin was born in the year 2014. My second and
third children were born at Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichy. Since
facilities were not upto the mark at Karaikal and it was cesarian
and the Doctor in Lalitha Nursing Home was the family doctor of
my father-in-law, I came to Trichy to have better facilities. We
have not registered the birth of my child Praneel. The hospital,
in which he was born, might have registered his birth. My father
would have registered his birth in Nedungadu. The birth
certificate issued at Nedungadu is being used by us for all
purposes. The address mentioned in Ex.P6 is that of my father-
in-law’s. When my father was Minister, I was given appointment
as Watch and Ward staff in the Government of Pondicherry.

Ex.R7 is the original office order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the
Private Secretary to Chief Minister, Government of Puducherry,
appointing me as Watch and Ward on co-terminal basis in the
office of the Agriculture Minister, Puducherry. I was appointed
for the reason that my father was undergoing dialysis from the
year 2007 and that no one should question me when I help my
father in discharging his official duties. Witness adds: The year

http://www.judis.nic.in
34

mentioned above must be 2005. Ex.R8 is the original office order
dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Private Secretary to Chief
Minister, Government of Puducherry, relieving me from the post
of Watch and Ward. In 2016 elections, 9 members contested
against me. Out of them, the election petitioner herein namely
Mr.A.Marimuthu is the main contestant, who contested on the
token of Congress Party. I deny the contention of the election
petitioner raised in his election petition that I have committed
several irregularities and illegalities with regard to birth and
caste certificates, concerning me and my children.”

She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the election

petitioner. In her cross-examination, she has deposed as follows:

“My father has two children i.e., one daughter (myself)
and one son. But the son died within one month from his birth.
Now, I am the only child to my parents. My father was elected as
an M.L.A for four times and he was a Minister thrice. My father
was Minister for Department of Industries, Agriculture and Local
Administration. I married at the age of 19 years. My husband
hails from Trichy. Before our marriage, my husband had his
name in the ration card held at Trichy, but after marriage, his
name was removed from the ration card held at Trichy. I do not
remember exactly when my husband’s name was removed from
the ration card held at Trichy. After removing his name from the
ration card, we produced a Certificate to that effect to include
his name in the ration card held at Karaikal. I do not know
whether my husband’s name now finds a place in the ration card
held at Trichy, as I have never seen that ration card. My name
was not included in the ration card held at Trichy. The details of
the family members contained in Ex.P7 are ours only, but I do
not know when it was obtained. Mrs.Sumathi, who finds a place
in Ex.P7, is my aunt i.e. my mother’s sister. Ex.P4-Birth
Certificate is mine only. The date of registration mentioned in
Ex.P4 is 17.07.1989. In Ex.P4, the place of birth is mentioned as
“Maternity Hospital, Pondicherry” and permanent address is
mentioned as “Beach Road, Pondicherry”. It is true that Ex.P3-

Birth Certificate is also mine. In Ex.P3, the place of birth is
mentioned as “Paruthikudi” and the date of registration is
mentioned as “17.07.1989” and the address is mentioned as

http://www.judis.nic.in
35

“Paruthikudi”. I do not know how two different birth certificates
with different particulars were issued for a single person. Out of
the two birth certificates Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, Ex.P3 is the correct
one. I know only the birth certificate marked as Ex.P3 and I do
not know about Ex.P4. I have three children. Out of them, my
first son died immediately after his birth, my second son is
Praneel and my third son is Stalin Chandra. My second son
Praneel was born at Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichy, in August,
2011. I have not obtained birth certificate for my son Praneel.
Since all the particulars mentioned in Ex.P6 are correct, I believe
that Ex.P6 is the birth certificate of my son Praneel. It is true
that Ex.P5 is also the birth certificate of my son Praneel. In
Ex.P5, the place of birth is mentioned as Keela Paruthikudi. In
Ex.P6, the place of birth is mentioned as Lalitha Nursing Home,
Tiruchirapalli.

Q: In your chief examination, you have stated that your son
Praneel was born at Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichy, and Ex.P6 also
contains the place of birth of your son Praneel as Lalitha Nursing
Home, Trichy. Therefore, I put it to you that Ex.P6 is the correct
birth certificate.

A: We have not obtained the birth certificate marked as Ex.P6
and I do not know how it was issued.

I do not know how Ex.P5 was issued. Out of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6,
Ex.P5 contains the correct particulars. My father was Minister for
Department of Local Administration, Puducherry, for five years.
My educational qualification is 10th standard pass. Ex.R7-
Appointment Order was issued appointing me as Watch and Ward.

Q: Have you applied for the post of Watch and Ward?

A: No, I have not applied. If a Minister thinks, he can appoint
anybody as Watch and Ward.

Ex.R7-Appointment Order was issued to me by the then
Secretary of my father. In Ex.R7, reference number is mentioned
as “I. D. No.76/AM/OCM/2012”. I worked in the post of Watch and
Ward upto 2015. To contest in elections, I got relieved from the
post of Watch and Ward. The educational qualification required
for the post of Watch and Ward is X Standard. I have X Standard
pass Certificate. It is true that Ex.P10 is the Statement of Assets
and Liabilities furnished by me to the Election Commission. It is
true that the first and second properties mentioned in the

http://www.judis.nic.in
36

column of immovable properties in Ex.P10 are the properties of
myself and my husband respectively. The aforesaid first property
is a residential plot standing in my name, measuring an extent of
2400 sq. ft. The aforesaid second property is also a residential
plot standing in the name of my husband. Both the properties
are situate at Trichy. The total value of the assets mentioned in
Ex.P10 is Rs.1,36,00,000/-. At the time of filing nomination, my
age was 26 years. The aforesaid two plots were purchased out of
my income and also the income of my husband. In Ex.P10, the
total value of the assets of my husband is mentioned as
Rs.7,00,000/-. My husband has been working as Senior Engineer
in Karaikal Port. My husband studied upto B.Tech. My husband’s
age at the time of filing of nomination was 34 years. The sale
deed dated 12.02.2014 marked as Ex.P13 Series is executed in my
favour. The sale consideration paid under the aforesaid sale
deed is Rs.22,00,000/-. It is true that in 2014, I was working as
Watch and Ward in Puducherry Government. I do not know
whether prior permission was obtained from the employer viz.,
Government of Puducherry, before purchase of the property. The
sale deed dated 16.09.2010 marked as Ex.P13 Series is executed
in my favour. In 2010, I was not working. The sale consideration
mentioned in the sale deed dated 16.09.2010 was given by my
father. Ex.P14-Sale Deed dated 04.10.2007 was executed for the
property purchased in my name. In 2007, my age was 18 years.
The sale consideration mentioned in Ex.P14 was also paid by my
father as I was unmarried then. All the details regarding filing of
nomination was known to my husband and my father, as they
took care of the same. I deny the suggestion that though I am
having permanent residence at Tiruchirapalli, I contested from
Nedungadu Constituency, by submitting forgery documents and
defrauding the Election Commission.”

(b) The husband of the 1st respondent was examined as RW2. Ex.R9 was

marked through him. In his chief examination, he has deposed as follows:

“The first respondent Chandrapriyanga is my wife. I got
married in the year 2009. My educational qualification is B.Tech.

At the time of my marriage, I was working in Bangalore. The

http://www.judis.nic.in
37

native place of my parents is Trichy. I am now working in
Karaikal Port. I joined as Senior Engineer in Karaikal Port in
August 2009. Ex.R9 is the original appointment order dated
27.08.2009 issued to me by Marg Limited. I had ration card in my
name at Trichy before my marriage. After my marriage, my
name in the ration card that we had at Trichy was deleted and it
was included in the ration card at Kariakal. The ration card that
we have at Karaikal has already been marked as Ex.R2. My
electoral identity card has already been marked as Ex.R5. My
Aadhaar card has already been marked as Ex.R6. After my
marriage, I have never lived at Trichy along with my wife. ”

He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the election

petitioner. In his cross examination, he has deposed as follows:

“Marg limited is a Private Company. Marg Company is run
by one Mr.G.R.K.Reddy. Witness adds: I do not know the
abbreviation of the initial “G.R.K”. Mr. G.R.K. Reddy is an
individual Entrepreneur. and he is the Chairman of Marg Limited.
In Ex.R9, there is no file Number. In Bangalore, I was working as
Piping Designer and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The
activities of Marg Limited in Karaikal Port are port handling,
loading and unloading of coal, etc. I deny the suggestion that the
appointment order (Ex.R9) was obtained only for the purpose of
having address at Karaikal. I do not know about the census report
(Ex.P23), wherein it is mentioned that I was residing at Trichy in
2011. My son Praneel was born on 11.08.2011 at Lalitha Nursing
Home, Trichy. At the time of my son Praneel’s birth, I was in
Trichy. The details that shall be furnished to the hospital, were
furnished by my father to Lalitha Nursing Home, Trichy. My
father had given the details to the hospital one day before my
reaching Trichy. The permanent address mentioned in Ex.P6-Birth
Certificate as Trichy might have been given by my father and I do
not know anything about it. I deny the suggestion that I had
never shifted my residence from Trichy to Karaikal and that only
to facilitate my wife to contest in the elections, I had obtained
forged and fabricated documents.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
38

(c) The Assistant Vice President of M/s. Karakal Port Private Limited was

examined as R.W.3. Through him, Exs.R10 to R17 were marked. In his chief

examination, he has deposed as follows:

“From the year 2005, I have been working for Karaikal
Port. Initially in January 2006, Marg Limited entered into an
agreement with the Government of Pondicherry for carrying out
work in Karaikal Port and subsequently, we floated a special
purpose vehicle as M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Earlier, I
was an employee of Marg Limited and now, I am the first
employee of M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Ex.R10 is the
photocopy of my employee identity card, issued by M/s.Karaikal
Port Private Limited (marked after comparing and verifying with
the original and the original has been returned to the witness). I
know Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam. Initially Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam joined
Marg Limited and subsequently, he was transferred to
M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Now, he is an employee of
M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Ex.R11 is the original letter
dated 24.09.2019 issued by Senior Manager, HR (Admin),
M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Ex.R12 is the original letter
of offer dated 17.08.2009 issued appointing Mr.K.Shanmugam as
Senior Engineer – Project in Marg Limited. Ex.R13 is the original
letter dated 01.11.2011 issued transferring Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam
from Marg Limited to M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. Ex.R14
is the computer generated salary slip for the month of June 2019
in respect of Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam, wherein his provident fund
number etc., have been mentioned. Ex.R15 is the computer
generated salary slip for the month of July 2019 in respect of
Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam. Ex.R16 is the computer generated salary
slip for the month of August 2019 in respect of
Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam. Ex.R17 is the certificate dated 25.09.2019
given by me as required under Section 65B(4) of the Indian
Evidence Act, for the computer generated salary slips marked as
Ex.R14 to Ex.R16.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
39

He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the election

petitioner. In his cross examination, he has deposed as follows:

“Marg is a public limited company. It was started in the
year 1995 and its headquarters is at Chennai. Now I am working
at M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited. M/s.Karaikal Port Private
Limited is a separate entity and Marg Limited is a separate
entity. Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam joined Marg Limited in the year
2009. In the year 2009, I was working in M/s.Karaikal Port
Private Limited. In the year 2009, my company is different and
the company of Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam is different. Since Marg
Limited had done all EPC works for M/s.Karaikal Port Private
Limited, I know Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam. Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam
transferred from Marg Limited to M/s.Karaikal Port Private
Limited in the year 2011. Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam submitted his
application for appointment in Marg Limited. I only know that he
was appointed in Marg Limited, but I do not know about his
selection particulars. In the year 2009, Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam was
working as Site Engineer. At that time, he was a graduate in
B.Tech (Mechanical). In the year 2011, he was transferred to
M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited as Site Engineer. It is correct
to state that in the year 2009, my employer was M/s.Karaikal
Port Private Limited and the employer of Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam
was Marg Limited. Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam was appointed by
Mr.Bhavani Shankar, HR (Admin) and Assistant Vice-President. In
M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited, I am looking after Engineering
as well as Administration. Since both Marg Limited and Karaikal
Port Private Limited are group companies, Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam
was transferred from Marg Limited to Karaikal Port Private
Limited in the year 2011. In the year 2009, Marg Limited
operations were looked after by Mr.Venkatachari, Vice-President
(Projects). Ex.R11 to Ex.R13 are obtained from M/s.Karaikal Port
Private Limited. yesterday. I have come to this Hon’ble Court to
depose to the effect whether Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam is an
employee of M/s.Karaikal Port Private Limited or not. On the
basis of the transfer letter-Ex.R13, I am deposing now. I deny
the suggestion that without knowing the particulars of
appointment of Mr.K.N.S.Shanmugam, which was done in the
year 2009, I am deposing falsely.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
40

7. Ex.P1 series, containing six sheets, is the information obtained under

R.T.I. Act, 2005. Ex.P2 is the Marriage Invitation of the 1st respondent. Ex.P3 is

the Certificate of Birth of the 1st respondent issued by the Nedungadu

Commune Panchayat. Ex.P4 is the Birth Certificate of the 1st respondent

issued by the Puducherry Municipality. Ex.P5 is the birth certificate of the son

of the 1st respondent issued by the Nedungadu Commune Panchayat. Ex.P6 is

the Birth Certificate of the son of the 1st respondent issued by the

Tiruchirapalli City Corporation. Ex.P7 is the Ration Card issued by the

Government of Puducherry. Ex.P8 is the xerox copy of the census report

extract. Ex.P9 series are the certified copies of the documents in respect of

the 1st respondent of Nedungadu Constituency, Karaikal. Ex.P10 is the details

of the 1st respondent Company, the winner of Nedungadu Constituency. Ex.P11

is the photo copy of the sale deed dated 13.07.2015. Ex.P12 is the photo copy

of the sale deed dated 24.07.2015. Ex.P13 is the photo copy of the certified

copies of the sale deeds dated 12.02.2014 and 16.09.2010. Ex.P14 is the photo

copy of the certified copy of the sale deed dated 04.10.2007. Ex.P15 is the

voters information issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. Ex.P16 is the

declaration of the result of the Election at Nedungadu Assembly Constituency.

Ex.P17 is the representation of the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 to the Chief

Election Officer. Ex.P18 is the letter dated 25.05.2014 addressed to the

http://www.judis.nic.in
41

election petitioner by the Returning Officer. Ex.P19 is the list of candidates as

per the vote secured at Nedungadu Constituency. Ex.P20 is the paper cutting

dated 04.10.2016. Ex.P21 is the letter written by the Joint Chief Electoral

Officer dated 25.08.2016 to the election petitioner. Ex.P22 is the photo copy

of the check list annexed to Form 26. Ex.P23 is the photo copy of Local

Register of Usual Residents.

8. Ex.R1 is the summon issued to the Assistant Commissioner/ Census

Officer, Trichy. Ex.R2 is the photo copy of the Family Ration Card. Ex.R3 is the

photo copy of the Identity Card of the 1st respondent issued by the Election

Commission of India. Ex.R4 is the photo copy of the Aadhar Card issued to the

1st respondent. Ex.R5 is the photo copy of the Identity Card issued by the

Election Commission of India to the husband of the 1st respondent. Ex.R6 is the

Aadhar card issued to the husband of the 1st respondent. Ex.R7 is the letter

dated 12.03.2012 issued by the Private Secretary to the Chief Ministry of

Government of Puducherry, issued to the 1st respondent. Ex.R8 is the letter

dated 18.05.2015 issued by the Private Secretary to the Chief Ministry,

Government of Puducherry, issued to the 1st respondent. Ex.R9 is the letter

dated 27.08.2009 address to the husband of the 1st respondent by Marg

Limited. Ex.P10 is the identity card issued to RW3. Ex.R11 is the

communication dated 24.09.2019 issued by Karaikal Port. Ex.R12 is the letter

http://www.judis.nic.in
42

dated 17.08.2009 issued by Marg Limited to the husband of the 1 st respondent.

Ex.R13 is the letter dated 01.11.2011 issued by Marg Limited to the husband of

the 1st respondent. Exs.R14 to R16 are the Salary certificates issued by Karaikal

Port Private Limited to the husband of the 1st respondent. Ex.R17 is the

Certificate dated 25.09.2019 issued under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872.

9. Mr.T.P.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner

made his oral submissions. He has also filed his written arguments. The sum

and substance of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Election

Petitioner are as follows:

Issue (a)

The 1st respondent produced forged documents in connection with her

residential status. The origin of the residence certificates submitted by her

before the Election Commissioner are not genuine. After her marriage on

24.06.2009, the 1st respondent shifted her residence permanently to Trichy and

voluntarily ceased to be a resident of Pondicherry Union Territory. The 1st

respondent has not deposed anything against series of documents contained in

Ex.P1 in her cross examination. In the application submitted before the

Tahsildar, Thirunallar, for issuing residential, caste and nationality certificate,

the 1st respondent has not filled up the application properly and furnished vital

http://www.judis.nic.in
43

information. There are several corrections in Ex.P1. P.W.5 admitted that he

only issued the caste certificate to the 1st respondent and admitted the

irregularities found in the caste certificate. The caste certificate in Ex.P1 do

not bear the name, designation and seal of the issuing authority. Thus, the

above oral and documentary evidence clearly establish the fact that the

residential certificate and caste certificate produced by the 1st respondent are

not valid documents. The evidence of P.W.6 clearly established the fact that

the origin certificate and caste certificate submitted by the 1st respondent are

not authenticated documents and they are improper documents. Exs.P3 and P4

Birth Certificates would reveal that they are issued on the same day and

however, having two different registration numbers with different place of

birth. Therefore, the Birth Certificate submitted by the 1st respondent is not

genuine and forged one.

Issue (b)

The 1st respondent’s husband permanent address as per the election card

issued to his parents is Tiruchirappalli. The Ration Card still mentions the name

of the 1st respondent. Without taking any effort to cancel the said Ration Card,

her husband went on to obtain another Ration Card at Nedungadu. Therefore,

it is established that the 1st respondent created a forged Ration Card at

Puducherry, solely for the purpose of contesting the election. In this regard,

http://www.judis.nic.in
44

the deposition of P.W.3 is relevant to be noted.

Issue (c)

Exs.P8 and P23 clearly establish that the 1st respondent shifted her

residence to Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, after marriage and she is not the

residence of Union Territory of Puducherry. The evidence of P.W.2 is relevant

to be noted in this regard.

Issue (d)

In Form 26 submitted before the Election Commissioner, the 1st

respondent suppressed certain material facts by referring several columns as

not applicable, whereas the information relevant to such columns are

available.

Issue (e)

The 1st respondent ought not to have considered to be a candidate setup

by a political party namely AINRC. The said party has failed to comply with the

statutory requirements stipulated under Election Symbols (Reservation and

Allotment) Order 1969. The Joint Electoral Officer stated that as per the

records available, Form-A and Form-B were not received by AINRC party in

http://www.judis.nic.in
45

their office but the AINRC party informed through letter dated 29.04.2016 that

Form-A and Form-B in respect of their candidates were submitted to the

Returning Officers of the concerned Assembly Constituency within the

stipulated time. In this regard, P.W.7 was examined. From his evidence, it is

established that Form-A and Form-B were not received in the office of the

Chief Electoral Officer on the stipulated date and time. The Returning Officer,

Nedungadu Assembly Constituency, Karaikal, was examined as PW.2. From his

evidence, it is established that the mandatory requirements were violated.

Issue (f)

Issue of Caste certificate was already discussed earlier. The 1st

respondent has not submitted any document to claim her caste as

“Conemottu”.

Issue (g)

This issue has already been discussed supra.

Issue (h)

The 1st respondent herself has accepted that her son was born only at

Trichy. Therefore, Ex.P6 has to be considered as authenticated and genuine.

Therefore, it is established that Ex.P5 is a forged one. Hence, the 1 st

http://www.judis.nic.in
46

respondent is not legally entitled to contest in the said election in Nedungadu

Constituency. The appointment order was issued in favour of the 1st respondent

on the dictates of her father, who was working as Agricultural Minister at that

time. Thus, the appointment order was issued only as a name sake.

Issue (i)

The 1st respondent is not justified in placing reliance in Ex.P5 Birth

Certificate in view of her categorical admission.

Issue (j)

Exs.P8 P23 and the deposition of P.W.9 established that the 1st

respondent was having permanent resident only at Trichy, Tamil Nadu.

Issue (k)

The caste certificate submitted by the 1st respondent becomes

unsustainable. The residence certificate issued by the 1st respondent is not

valid. Hence, she is not eligible to contest in Nedungadu Assembly

Constituency. The 1st respondent has not established by examining anyone from

Marg Company that her husband was appointed in that Company. Ex.R9,

appointment order is not genuine. The 1st respondent failed to establish that

she had permanent resident at Karaikal after marriage with P.W.2.

http://www.judis.nic.in
47

10. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following decisions:

(i) Election Petition No.20/2009 dated 10.04.2013;

(ii) 149 (2008) DLT 205 (Sh.Jaspal Singh Vs Sh.O.P.Babbar);

(iii) 2004 (2) ALT 157, (Nimmaka Jaya Raju vs. Satrucharla Vijaya

Rama Raju)

11. Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent made his

oral submissions. He also filed written submissions and additional written

submissions, on behalf of the first respondent. The sum and substance of

submissions made on behalf of the first respondent are as follows:

a) None of the grounds under which an election can be challenged have

been made out by the election petitioner. No averments were made in the

election petition to attract Section 100(1)(d) (iii) of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 and therefore, it will have to be construed that the election

petition is filed only under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). It is not stated as to which of

the provisions of the Constitution of India or of the Representation of the

People Act or of any rules and orders made under the said Act have not been

complied with. No specific allegations or material evidence necessary to

support such allegations have been made in the election petition. Article 173

and 191 of the Constitution of India prescribed the qualification and

http://www.judis.nic.in
48

disqualification for a candidate to contest in an Assembly Constituency.

Section 2(1)(e) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 defines as to who is

an “elector” and Section 16 of the said Act spells out the disqualifications for

registration in an electoral roll. The first respondent fully qualifies to be a

candidate for being elected to the legislative assembly of the Union Territory

of Puducherry. There is absolutely no disqualification. The allegations of the

petitioner, if at all can border upon Section 17 of the Representation of People

Act, 1950, which is not a disqualification and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that the violation of Section 17 is not a disqualification. Anyhow, it is not the

case of the petitioner that the first respondent’s name has been registered in

the electoral roll for more than one constituency. The election petitioner has

not been able to produce any evidence to show that the name of the first

respondent finds place in the electoral roll at Trichy. Sections 19 and 20 of the

Representation of the People Act defines the meaning of “ordinarily resident”

and the election petitioner, who never had any objections to the name of the

first respondent finding place in the electoral roll at the Union Territory of

Puducherry, cannot raise the said objection in the election petition.

b) Issue (a) falls outside the purview of the election petition and

cannot be considered herein. It is not a ground mentioned in Section

100(1)(d)(iv). The first respondent is a native of Nedungadu, Karaikal and her

http://www.judis.nic.in
49

parents, being natives of the same place and also belonging to “Paraiyan”

community, admittedly, a Schedule Caste. Therefore, the entire allegations of

the election petitioner, as if the first respondent had shifted her residence to

Trichy, after her marriage, is only on the basis of presumptions, to which, no

evidence has been let in. Ex.P1 does not in anyway support the case of the

election petitioner. Mere oral testimony of the election petitioner, who is not

a competent person to speak about the genuinity of the Community

Certificate, does not in anyway further the case of the petitioner. Relevant

and material details for issuance of those certificates are furnished by the first

respondent and only after verification of the records and the reports, the

concerned officials have issued the certificates. With regard to the allegations

regarding the Birth Certificate, the first respondent had no role to play in the

matter of registration of her birth in Exs.P3 and P4, as such information

regarding her birth can be given by the Head of the house or the nearest

relative or the oldest adult male person in a house or by a Medical Officer. On

receipt of information from any source, the details are entered in Birth

Register and there is no process of verification involved. When the first

respondent had no role to play regarding the entires made in Exs.P3 and P4,

she cannot be blamed or the contents of those certificate cannot be put

against her. In any event, both Exs.P3 and P4 would show that she is native of

Puducherry. Thus, she is fully entitled to contest in the election. As regards

http://www.judis.nic.in
50

Exs.P5 and P6, regarding the Birth Certificate of her son, it is the categorical

evidence of RW1 that the hospital at Trichy where he was born, might have

registered his birth and that her father-in-law would have registered his birth

in Nedungadu. The addresses in Birth Certificates cannot be said to be in

conclusive proof of the residential address of the parents. There is absolutely

no evidence as to the source of the information for the certificates Exs.P3 to

P6. It cannot be used as proof of evidence or nativity. Therefore, the reliance

placed on the Birth Certificate is of no consequence and no adverse inference

can be drawn against the first respondent. Though the election petitioner has

alleged that the documents are forged, he has not been able to establish as to

what is false in those documents. In the present case, there is absolutely no

allegation as to how, when and where the first respondent made any false

documents with an intention of committing any forgery in the absence of any

evidence to make out a case of forgery, simply allegation of forgery does not

further the case of the election petitioner. Required details have been

furnished by the first respondent to the Tahsildar of Tirunallar in an

application submitted for obtaining Ex.P1. The witnesses have categorically

spoken about the Caste Certificate issue in favour of the first respondent and

that the same was issued by the Tahsildar of Karaikal, who is the competent

Authority. An official act is presumed to have been done legally and unless the

election petitioner produces strong material and evidence to displace such

http://www.judis.nic.in
51

presumption, no contrary inference can be drawn merely on the basis of

certain premises and conjectures. No questions have been put forth while

cross-examining RW1 regarding the alleged falsity or forgery in the Caste

Certificate or Residence Certificate furnished by her.

c) With regard to issue (b), it is to be noted that Ex.P7 photocopy of the

Family Card does not contain the date on which such card was obtained or

downloaded by the election petitioner and the source of such document is also

not disclosed whereas PW3 has denied Ex.P7. Ex.R2 is the duplicate of the

Ration Card issued to the family of the first respondent which contains her

husband’s name also. Therefore, it is obvious that the name of the first

respondent’s husband has been deleted from the Ration Card at Trichy and

included with that of the first respondent issued at Karaikal. The allegations

of forgery are absolutely misconceived and no case is made out to that effect.

PW3 has categorically stated that a person cannot be a voter in Puducherry, if

he or she settled outside Puducherry after marriage. When there is no proof

produced by the petitioner to show that the first respondent settled outside

Puducherry, such argument is not available to the election petitioner.

d) With regard to issue ( c), the first respondent had raised objections

for marking Ex.P8, an alleged Census Report, which does not bear the source of

http://www.judis.nic.in
52

the same and therefore, cannot be received and looked into as evidence.

Ex.P23 does not contain the date of visit of the enumerator. P.W.9, who

produced the said document, stated that he has not involved in the census that

took place in 2011. He further stated in the cross examination that he did not

verify whether the contents found in Ex.P23 are true or not. Therefore, no

reliance can be placed in Ex.P23. On the other hand, the election petitioner

has produced Ex.P15 showing that she is a voter in the Nedungadu

Constituency. Ex.R3 Voter I.D. Card of the first respondent and Aadhaar Card

under Ex.R4, Exs.R5 and R6 would show that the first respondent and her

husband are the voters of the Nedungadu Constituency. Ex.R7 is an Office

Order showing that the first respondent was engaged as Watch and Ward with

effect from 08.06.2011, which goes to show that the first respondent never got

shifted her residence at Trichy.

e) Regarding issue (d), the first respondent has furnished the relevant

information in the columns provided in Form 26. Therefore, the allegation

made by the election petitioner as if the election petitioner did not furnish

informations in Form 26 is incorrect.

f) Regarding issue (e), it is to be noted that P.W.2 the Returning Officer

has deposed that Form A and Form B in respect of the first respondent were

http://www.judis.nic.in
53

submitted at 01.50 p.m. on 29.04.2016. Therefore, it is clear that the

requisite forms have been submitted within time. Rule 13 of the Election

Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 states that a notice by the

political party in writing in Form B to the effect that the candidate as a

Member of the political party be delivered to the Returning Officer not later

than 3 p.m. on the last day of making nominations. What is contemplated is

the delivery of Form B before 3 p.m. on the last day of nomination to the

Returning Officer. Therefore, the same cannot be extended to include the

Chief Electoral Officer also. The evidence of P.W.7 also supports the case of

the first respondent that Form A and B have been received at 01.50 p.m. by

the Returning Officer. There is nothing in Ex.P21 to indicate that the same

were not submitted to the Returning Officer before 3.00 p.m. The very same

issue in respect of the very same election 2016 of the Union Territory of

Puducherry came to be considered by this Court in a batch of election petition

and this Court has held that delivery of Form A and B to the Returning Officer

within the time is substantial compliance of requirements of law and non

delivery of such communication to the Chief Electoral Officer within the time

was held to be not a ground for challenging the election.

g) Regarding issue (f), it is stated that the first respondent belongs to

‘Paraiyan’ caste, which is one of the caste mentioned in Schedule to The

http://www.judis.nic.in
54

Constitution (Puducherry) Schedule Caste Order, 1964. It is not the case of the

first respondent that she belongs to “Conemottu” rather it is the case of the

election petitioner. However, the election petitioner has not produced any

evidence to show that the first respondent does not belong to ‘Paraiyan’

Community and belongs to some other community. The petitioner in Ex.P17

itself admitted that the father of the first respondent had contested in the

very same constituency and became successful. P.W.1 has categorically

admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the first respondent

belongs to different caste.

h) Regarding issue (g), it is stated that all necessary particulars and

proofs have been produced by the first respondent before the Election

Commission and her nomination has been accepted in a lawful manner.

i) Regarding issue (h), the Birth Certificate of the child cannot be

conclusive to show the residential address of the parents.

j) Regarding issue (i), the first respondent is an Elector within the Union

Territory of Puducherry and she is not relying upon her son’s Birth Certificate

to contest the election.

http://www.judis.nic.in
55

k) Regarding issue (j), Census is an official count or survey of the

population and the same cannot be elevated to the status of the legal proof of

the persons residence. In this case, the person, who prepared Ex.P23, has not

been examined and it is not known as to what basis, the same came to be

recorded. Therefore, no credence can be attached to Ex.P23.

l) Regarding issue (k), the election petitioner has not made out any of

the grounds to challenge the election of the first respondent.

m) It is submitted that the Election Petitioner has not filed the Election

Petition under section 100(1)(a) and (or) 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Representation of

People Act, 1951. The Election Petition has been filed only under the grounds

enumerated in Section 100(1)(d)(iii) (iv). Therefore, it is not open to the

Election Petitioner to advance any submissions or make any contentions

regarding the qualification and eligibility of the 1st respondent’s candidature

for contesting in the election. Likewise, he cannot advance any submissions or

contentions regarding the alleged non-submission of Form A to the Chief

Electoral Officer within the time stipulated by law and as regards the

allegations of suppression of material facts in the Affidavits filed by the 1 st

respondent along with her nomination. Those are specific grounds set out in

Section 100 and when the Election Petitioner has consciously chosen not to file

http://www.judis.nic.in
56

the Election Petition under those specific grounds, it has been deemed that he

has waived his right to challenge the election of the 1st respondent on those

grounds. It cannot be contended by the Election Petitioner that the entire

submissions being made by him as regards the qualification of the 1st

respondent and as well as the alleged procedural violations to come within the

sweep of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Section 100(1)(d) (iv) can only be read as a residual provision to cover such

grounds which are not specifically provided for in the Section 100. When the

Election Petition consciously omitted to file the Election Petition under section

100(1)(a) and (d) (i), it is not open to him to make submissions on those

grounds to challenge the election of the 1st respondent. Hence, the election

petitioner, who has filed the election petition under the general provision of

Section 100(1)(d)(iv) and not under the specific provisions of section 100(1)(a)

and (or) section100(1)(d)(i) cannot take the benefit of the grounds in section

100(1)(a) and (or) section 100(1)(d)(i) to challenge the election of the 1st

respondent. Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, provides for

the contents of the election petition which stipulates that the election petition

shall contain concise statement of the material facts on which, the petitioner

relies. Having omitted to raise the specific grounds, the election petitioner

cannot take the 1st petitioner by surprise by urging other grounds on the basis

of which, the election petition was not filed and therefore, it deserves no

http://www.judis.nic.in
57

consideration by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the first respondent, in support of his

submission relied on the following decisions.

(i) (1999) 5 SCC 38 (Baburao v. Manikrao Anr.)

ii) 1970 (3) SCC 147 (Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali vs. B.D.Jatti

Ors.)

iii) 1974 (3) SCC 415 ( Hari Prasad Mulshankar Trivedi vs. V.B.Raju

Ors.)

iv) 2007 (11) SCC 1 (Pothula Rama Rao v. Pendyala Venkata Krishna
Rao)

v) 1969 (2) SCC 452 (Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh and Ors.)

vi) 1984 (3) SCC 649 (Ganu Ram v. Rikhi Ram Kundal)

13. Heard the learned counsel for the election petitioner and the

learned counsel for the contesting first respondent. Perused the pleadings of

the respective parties, evidence let in by them both oral and documentary and

the case laws relied on in support of their respective contention.

14. The present election petition is filed under Sections 81,

100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv), 101, 129 and 134 of the Representation of the

http://www.judis.nic.in
58

People Act, 1951. The prayer sought for in this election petition is to declare

the election of the first respondent from the Nedungadu Assembly

Constituency, Puducherry of Union Territory as null and void and to declare the

election petitioner as the elected candidate for the said constituency.

15. Section 81 of the said Act deals with the presentation of election

petition. Section 100 of the said Act deals with grounds for declaring election

to be void. Under the abovesaid provision, sub clause (1)(d)(iii) contemplates

that if this Court is of opinion that the result of the election, insofar as it

concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by the improper

reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which

is void.

16. Perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case

and the allegations made by the election petitioner against the first

respondent would clearly indicate that no specific and material averment is

made against the first respondent as if any vote or reception of any vote by her

is void. Therefore, I find that the election petition filed under the abovesaid

ground, without there being any material pleadings, cannot be sustained.

Section 101 of the said Act deals with grounds for which a candidate other than

the Returned Candidate may be declared to have been elected. Under the

http://www.judis.nic.in
59

above said provision, if this Court is of the opinion that the election petitioner

or such other candidate would have received majority of the valid votes but

for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, this

Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void and

declare the election petitioner or such other candidate as the case may be, to

have been duly elected. Therefore, in order to attract Section 101, the

election petitioner has to prove that but for the votes obtained by the first

respondent herein by corrupt practices, he would have obtained a majority of

the valid votes.

17. Therefore, in order to attract Section 101, the election petitioner

has to plead and prove that the first respondent received a majority of valid

votes by indulging in corrupt practices. In other words, the election petitioner

has to plead and prove that but for such corrupt practices, the election

petitioner would have become successful by obtaining the majority of the valid

votes than that of the first respondent. In this case, I do not find any material

averments as to what is corrupt practice of the first respondent made her to

receive majority of the valid votes than that of the election petitioner. At this

juncture, it is relevant to note that the act of corrupt practice must have

direct relevance in obtaining votes. Absolutely, there is no pleading and

evidence to that effect. Therefore, I find that this election petition is not

http://www.judis.nic.in
60

maintainable under Section 101.

18. Section 129 of the said Act contemplates that Officers of elections

not to act for candidates or to influence the vote. Section 134 deals with the

breaches of official duty in connection with elections. The election petitioner

has not pleaded that the officers at the election have acted in a such way to

influence the votes in favour of the first respondent. Equally, the election

petitioner did not make any material averments as to what are the official

duties, in connection with the elections, have been breached in this case, in

order to attract Section 129 as well as 134 of the said Act. Therefore, I find

that the election petition filed under those two provisions also is not

sustainable.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election

petition, though may not cover the ground under 100 (1)(d)(iii), it would cover

and fall under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act based on the allegations

made and proved against the first respondent.

20. Section 100(1)(d)(iv) contemplates that if the High Court is of the

opinion that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a Returned

Candidate, has been materially affected by any non compliance of the

http://www.judis.nic.in
61

provisions of the Constitution of India or of the Representation of the People

Act, 1951 or of any Rules or orders made under the said Act, this Court shall

declare the election of the Returned Candidate to be void.

21. Therefore, this Court has to now see as to whether the petitioner

has made out a case under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act to declare the

election of the first respondent void, based on his pleadings and evidence.

22. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the election

petitioner against the first respondent/returned candidate are as follows:

a) The first respondent, in order to contest in the election, forged

documents such as Origin Certificate, Residence Certificate, Birth Certificate

and Ration Card. In other words, the specific case of the election petitioner is

that the first respondent is not a permanent resident of Pondicherry Union

Territory for more than 5 years before the date of election and on the other

hand, she is a permanent resident of Tamilnadu at Trichirappalli.

b) The first respondent made incorrect particulars in the affidavit filed

before the Returning Officer in Form 26 and that she failed to deliver Form A

within the stipulated time on the last day for making the nomination.

http://www.judis.nic.in
62

c) The Caste Certificate issued in the name of the first respondent is

invalid and she belongs to ‘Conemottu’ caste, which is not included in the

schedule contained in Appendix -IV of the Constitution of (Puducherry)

Schedule Caste order 1964.

d) The Birth Certificate issued in the name of the first respondent’s son

cannot be relied on by the first respondent to claim her permanent status as

Puducherry to contest the election.

23. I have already pointed out that the election petitioner did not make

any averments in the election petition to bring the same under purview of

Section 100(1)(d)(iii). Therefore, the election petition filed under the

abovesaid provision cannot be sustained in the absence of any specific

pleadings and evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner however

contended that the allegations made in the election petition, if not covered

under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) would certainly attract the ground referred to

under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).

24. I have already pointed out that this Court can declare the election

of the returned candidate to be void under the above referred ground viz.,

http://www.judis.nic.in
63

Section 100(1)(d)(iv) provided the election petitioner made clear and

categorical averments as to which are the provisions of the Constitution of

India or the representations of People Act, 1951 or any rules or orders made

under the said Act are not complied with by the first respondent and that he

has also proved those allegations with material evidence.

25. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first

respondent, except showing Section 100(1)(d)(iv) also as one of the provision

under which the election petition is filed, the election petitioner has not made

any specific averments as to which are the provisions of the Constitution or the

said Act and Rules are either violated or not complied with by the first

respondent. Needless to state that in the absence of any specific allegations

made in the election petition, the first respondent cannot be expected to

meet such allegations in the counter and contest the election petition. It is

also well settled that any amount of evidence without material pleadings

cannot be looked into. In other words, specific pleadings with material details

alone can sought to be established by placing supportive evidence and not by

adducing any evidence to presume a pleading. Even otherwise, if this Court go

into the allegations made in the election petition with regard to the origin,

residence, birth of the first respondent and evidence let in by both path

parties, it would only show that the petitioner has not made out a case for

http://www.judis.nic.in
64

declaring the election of the first respondent as void. The reasons for such

conclusion are as follows.

26. The subject matter constituency is a reserved constituency. The

election petitioner and the first respondent along with other candidates

contested the election by claiming themselves as persons belonging to

scheduled caste. The first respondent claims to belong “Parayan” community,

which is admittedly a notified schedule caste. In support of her claim, the first

respondent filed the Caste Certificate, which is found in Ex.P1 series showing

that she belongs to Hindu Parayan caste, which is recognised as a scheduled

caste. Except to state that the first respondent has not properly filled up the

application before the Tahsildar to obtain the residential, caste and nationality

certificates, the election petitioner did not produce any contra evidence to

show that the first respondent belongs to some other caste or she does not

belong to a scheduled caste community to contest in the reserved

constituency.

27. Certain corrections made in the applications submitted by the first

respondent itself cannot be stated as vital factor to conclude as if the caste

certificate issued to the first respondent is not genuine, in the absence of any

contra evidence. On the other hand, the Tahsildar, who was examined as

http://www.judis.nic.in
65

P.W.5, has stated that he only issued caste certificate in Ex.P1 and based on

the recommendations given by the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue

Inspector, he issued the Caste Certificate to the first respondent. The report

submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, Nedungadu forms part of

Ex.P1 series, wherein he has clearly stated that the first respondent was a

resident of Nedungadu from her birth i.e.11.07.1989 to 24.06.2009 and

25.06.2009, December 2010 (After marriage) and further shifted to Rasathi

Nagar, Karaikal due to personal problem. In the said report, it is also stated

that the first respondent belongs to Hindu Parayan by origin. Except certain

corrections made in the application submitted by the first respondent, nothing

adverse against the caste and residence certificate issued in favour of the first

respondent is spoken to by any of the independent/official witnesses, except

the interested testimony of the election petitioner as PW1. It is not enough to

state that a document is bogus without substantiating such claim by adducing

material evidence. The officials have not deposed that the caste and

residence certificates produced by the first respondent are not issued by them.

On the other hand, they admit the issuance of the same by themselves.

28. The question before this Court is as to whether the first respondent

possessed the relevant caste, residence certificate and produced the same

before Election Officials and not with regard to certain corrections made in her

http://www.judis.nic.in
66

application before the Authority to obtain such certificate. Hence, much focus

made on the correctness of the application made before certificate issuing

authorities is not going to serve any purpose for deciding this election petition.

29. No doubt, it is contended by the election petitioner that the first

respondent possesses two birth certificates and that her son was also issued

with two birth certificates. Exs.P3 and P4 are the Birth Certificates of the first

respondent. Perusal of the both certificates would show that they were given

in the name of the first respondent showing her date of birth as 11.07.1989.

Both were registered on 17.07.1989. While Ex.P3 refers the place of birth as

Paruthikudi, Ex.P4 refers the place of birth as maternity hospital, Pondicherry.

There is no dispute to the fact that both Exs.P3 and P4 would show that the

first respondent was born in the Union Territory of Puducherry. No other

contra evidence is let in by the election petitioner to disprove her origin of

birth at Union Territory of Puducherry. It is true that two different places are

referred to in those two certificates as the place of birth. As rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the informations contained

in the Birth Certificate are the informations furnished to the officer concerned

by head of the House or the nearest relative or the oldest adult male person or

by a Medical Officer as contemplated under Section 8 of the Registration of

Birth and Deaths Act, 1969. Based on such information, the birth is recorded

http://www.judis.nic.in
67

in the register without making any verification of such statement. It is not

known as to why and under what circumstances, the place of birth in those two

certificates were referred to differently. However, the fact remains that both

the places fall within the Union Territory of Puducherry and therefore, the

claim of residence of the first respondent within the Union Territory of

Puducherry has not been disproved by the election petitioner by adducing any

contra evidence. Even otherwise, the first respondent cannot be faulted or

found to have created the documents of her birth, when she has no role to play

at the time of her birth with regard to correctness of the entries made in the

Birth Certificate. Therefore, the contention of the election petitioner that the

first respondent has forged the documents viz., the Birth Certificates and

Residence Certificates is without any substance, as he has not adduced any

evidence in support of his claim of forgery of those documents. The election

petitioner has not made any allegation or averments in the election petition as

to how and in what manner, the first respondent had falsified the documents

with an intention to commit forgery. As already stated supra, mere allegation

of forgery is not sufficient without there being any material evidence in

support of such claim.

30. The official witness in relation to caste and residence certificate

have clearly spoken and admitted that the same were issued by the competent

http://www.judis.nic.in
68

authority in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, the contention of the

election petitioner that the documents obtained by him under the Rights to

information Act, which are only copies, do not bear the signature of the issuing

Authority, is not furthering the case of the election petitioner in any manner.

31. Likewise, the Birth Certificate issued in the name of the first

respondent’s son cannot speak about the place of birth of the first respondent

in any manner. It is not relevant to consider in this election petition as to why

two Birth Certificates were issued in the name of the son of the first

respondent showing two different places of birth. Even otherwise, the place of

birth found in the Birth Certificate of the first respondent’s son cannot be

construed as an evidence to prove the place of birth of the first respondent.

Therefore, reliance placed on Exs.P5 and P6 by the election petitioner is not

going to help him in any manner.

32. The election petitioner marked Exs.P8 and P23, the extract of the

census report in support of his contention that the 1st respondent shifted her

residence to Tiruchirapalli after her marriage and that she is not residing in

Union Territory of Puducherry. He examined the Census Officer as P.W.9.

Marking of Ex.P8 was objected to by the learned counsel for the 1st

respondent, since it does not bear the source of the said document. Perusal of

http://www.judis.nic.in
69

Ex.P8 does not show as to what the said document is about and who issued the

said document. Except a tabular column, it does not have a head or tail. It

does not contain any of the particulars regarding its nature and authenticity.

Ex.P23 is the extract of the National Population Register. It is seen that one

C.Buela Florence, the enumerator, had prepared the said register. She was not

examined as witness. P.W.9 who produced Ex.P8 and Ex.P23 clearly deposed

that he was not involved in the census that took place in the year 2011 and

that he had not verified whether the contents found in Ex.P23 are true or not.

Therefore, it is not safe to rely on Ex.P8 and Ex.P23. On the other hand,

Ex.P15 is showing the 1st respondent as a voter of Nedungadu Constituency.

Ex.R3 is the voter identity card of the 1st respondent. Aadhaar card marked as

Ex.R4 clearly shows that the 1st respondent is the resident and an elector

within the Union Territory of Pondichery. Further, Ex.R5 voter identity card

and Ex.R6 Aadhaar card of the husband of the 1st respondent also clearly

indicate that her husband is the voter of the Nedunkadu constituency. The

above official documents, namely voter identity card (Ex.R3), Aadhaar card

(Ex.R4) and voters information regarding the 1st respondent issued by the

Chief Electoral Officer, Puducherry (Ex.P15), would show that the 1st

http://www.judis.nic.in
70

respondent is the resident within the Union Territory of Puducherry and an

elector entitled to and qualified for contesting in the subject matter

constituency. The above official documents were not disproved as either

bogus or forged one. So long as those documents are in existence and force,

the contra pleadings made by the election petitioner regarding the residential

status of the first respondent, without any supportive evidence, cannot be

accepted.

33. With regard to the contention of the Election Petitioner on the

ration card marked as Ex.P7 is concerned, P.W.3 the Deputy Director of

Directorate of Civil Supplies has deposed that he does not know whether the

family card under Ex.P7 was issued by the Department of Civil Supplies,

Puducherry and when exactly the said card was issued. On the other hand, the

1st respondent marked Ex.R2, the duplicate ration card issued by the Civil

Supplies Department of Karaikal showing the names of the 1st respondent and

her husband along with other family members, as members in the family. In

any event, Ex.P7 showing the name of the 1st respondent as one of the

members of the family is also issued by Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs of Puducherry Government, indicating the address of the 1st

respondent as Paruthikudi Nedungadu. Therefore, Ex.P7 is not helping the

election petitioner to establish that the 1st respondent was not the resident of

http://www.judis.nic.in
71

Union Territory of Puducherry. It is to be noted at this juncture that the

election petitioner seems to have not raised any objection regarding the caste

and residence certificate of the first respondent at the time of scrutiny of

nomination.

34. In fact, the Apex Court in a decision made in (1999) 5 SCC 38,

(Baburao v. Manikrao Anr.), observed that if a person’s name finds a place

in more than one constituency it does not automatically entail the

disqualification from contesting in anyone of the constituencies. Likewise, in

1970 (3) SCC 147 (Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali vs. B.D.Jatti Ors.), it is

observed that in an election petition, the correctness of the Electoral Roll

cannot be gone into. In 1974 (3) SCC 415 ( Hari Prasad Mulshankar Trivedi

vs. V.B.Raju Ors.), the Apex Court categorically held that it would defeat

the object of the 1950 Act, if the question whether a person was ordinarily a

resident in a constituency were to be tried afresh by a court or tribunal, trying

an election petition. In 2007 (11) SCC 1 (Pothula Rama Rao v. Pendyala

Venkata Krishna Rao), the Apex Court again reiterated that double entry of

the name of a citizen in an electoral roll of a constituency is not a ground for

disqualification. The Apex Court in 1969 (2) SCC 452 (Kabul Singh v. Kundan

Singh and Ors.), has in categorical terms observed that entries found in the

electoral roll are final and they are not open to challenge either before a Civil

http://www.judis.nic.in
72

Court or before a Tribunal, which considers the validity of an election. In

1984 (3) SCC 649 (Ganu Ram v. Rikhi Ram Kundal), the Apex Court observed

that certificate which was produced by the appellant as an annexure to the

nomination paper has to be treated as forming part of the nomination paper

and the declaration contained therein must be understood and treated as a

declaration by the appellant in the nomination paper.

35. The relevant paragraphs of the above decisions are extracted

hereunder:

(i) In (1999) 5 SCC 38, (Baburao v. Manikrao Anr.), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed at paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows:

“15. There is nothing to suggest in Section 16
of the 1950 Act that if a person’s name finds a place
in more than one constituency that would
automatically entail disqualification from con
testing in any one of the constituencies. It is
relevant to note that Section 2(1)(e) of 1951 Act
refers disqualification under Section 16 of 1950 Act
alone while interpreting the word ‘Elector’ and has
not mentioned any contravention of Section 17 as
disqualification. No doubt Section 17 of 1950 Act
expressly states that no person shall be entitled to

http://www.judis.nic.in
73

be registered in the electoral roll for more than
one constituency. But if a person’s name finds a
place in more than one constituency does it
automatically entail the disqualification under
Section 16? We do not think so. Objection under
Section 17 could have been successfully raised to
prevent respondent No. 1’s name from being
included in Nilanga Constituency.

16. Likewise, a reading of other sections also
does not come to the help of the appellant to
sustain his contention. We are unable to find any
ground after reading Section 16 of the 1950 Act and
Articles 173 and 191 of the Constitution of India to
hold that the nomination of the first respondent
ought to have been rejected. The contention based
on Section 33(5) of the 1951 Act is misconceived. As
the respondent No. 1 did not file his nomination to
the 214 Nilanga Constituency on the basis of his
name finding a place in 206 Latur Constituency. On
the other hand he filed the nomination to 211
Nilanga Constituency only on the basis of his name
finding a place in that Constituency. That being the
position, the contention based on Section 33(5)
cannot be accepted and the citations have no
relevance. Likewise, after reading Section 100 of
the 1951 Act we are unable to declare the election
of the first respondent void under any one of the

http://www.judis.nic.in
74

grounds set out therein. It is not in dispute that the
appellant did not raise any objection before the
Electoral Registration Officer about inclusion of the
name of the first respondent in 211 Nilanga
Constituency. After carefully going through the
judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the
appellant, we find that that have no application to
the facts of this case.

ii) In 1970 (3) SCC 147 (Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali vs. B.D.Jatti

Ors.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at paragraphs 8 and 9 as

follows:

“8. The other provisions relating to election are
contained in Part XV of the Constitution. Article 324 deals
with the superintendence, direction and control of
elections which are vested in the Election Commission.
Article 325 declares that no person shall be ineligible for
inclusion in an Electoral Roll on account only of religion,
race, caste, sex or any of them. Article 326 says that the
elections to the House of the People and the Legislative
Assemblies of States shall be on the basis of adult
franchise. Article 327 gives power to the Parliament to
make provisions with respect to elections to Legislatures.

Article 329 bars the interference of courts in electoral
matters. By virtue of that Article no election shall be
called in question except by an election petition. It is

http://www.judis.nic.in
75

abundantly clear that in the present case the question
whether respondent No. 1 was ordinarily resident in
Jamkhandi constituency during the material period and
was entitled to be registered in the Electoral Roll could
not be the subject matter of enquiry except in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of 1950. The grounds on
which the election can be declared to be void under the
Act are set out in Section 100 of the Act. Clause (d) is
“that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
returned candidate, has been materially affected-(i) …(ii)
…(iii) …(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.” Nothing could be clearer than the
ambit of this provision. It does not entitle the court in an
election petition to set aside any election on the ground of
non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1950 or
of any rules made there under, with the exception of
Section 16.

9. The learned trial judge does not appear to have
fully and properly appreciated the correct ratio and true
determination of the points involved in Durga Shanker
Mehta’s case (supra). The distinction is too obvious to bear
repetition. It seems that a Bench decision of the Mysore
High Court in K. Sriramulu v. K. Deviah (1965) 1 Mys. L.J.

676. was distinguished without any justification by the
learned judge. It was clearly laid therein that in an
election petition the correctness of the Electoral Roll

http://www.judis.nic.in
76

cannot be gone into. The decision of a Full bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan
Singh and Ors. (1967) P.L.R. 618. about the finality of the
Electoral Roll was also not noticed. In this view of the
matter the evidence relating to issue No. 1(a) becomes
wholly irrelevant and redundant. The decision on that
issue in favour of respondent No. 1. is however, affirmed.”

iii) In 1974 (3) SCC 415 ( Hari Prasad Mulshankar Trivedi vs.

V.B.Raju Ors.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at paragraphs

29,30, 31 and 32 as follows:

“29. And concerned as we are in this case only with
the question whether the High Court trying an election
petition has jurisdiction to try and decide whether these
respondents were ordinarily resident in the respective
parliamentary constituency in Gujarat, we should think
the matter is concluded by the decision of this Court in
Jatti’s case (supra).

30. The requirement of ordinary residence as a
condition for registration in the electoral rolls in one
created by Parliament by Section 19 of the 1950 Act, and
as we said, we see no reason why Parliament should have
no power to entrust to an authority other than a court or
a tribunal trying an election petition the exclusive power
to decide the matter finally. We have already referred to
the observation of this Court in Kabul Singh’s case (supra)

http://www.judis.nic.in
77

that Sections 14 to 24 of the 1950 Act are integrated
provisions which form a complete code in the matter of
preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls. Section 30
of that Act makes it clear that civil courts have no power
to adjudicate the question. In these circumstances we do
not think that it would be incongruous to infer an implied
ouster of the jurisdiction of the court trying an election
petition to go into the question. That inference is
strengthened by the fact that under Section 100(1)(d) (iv)
of the 1951 Act the result of the election must have been
materially affected by noncompliance with the provisions
of the Constitution or of that Act or of the rules, orders
made under that Act in order that High Court may declare
an election to be void. Non-compliance with the provisions
of Section 19 of the 1950 Act cannot furnish a ground for
declaring an election void under that clause.

31. We, therefore, return to the question whether
these respondents were not qualified or were disqualified
to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or the
1950 Act or the 1951 Act. As we said, there was no
allegation that they were disqualified under Section 16 of
the 1950 Act. Nor was there any ground taken that they
were not qualified in the sense of their being not citizens
or under the age as required. As their names were
entered in the electoral roll and as they did not suffer
from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16
of the 1950 Act, they were electors within the definition

http://www.judis.nic.in
78

of the term in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1951 Act. They were,
therefore, qualified to be chosen as candidates under
Section 3 of the 1951 Act.

32. We think that the intention of the Parliament
to oust the jurisdiction of the court trying an election
petition to go into the question whether a person is
ordinarily resident in the constituency in the electoral roll
of which his name is entered is manifest from the scheme
of the 1950 and the 1951 Acts. It would defeat the object
of the 1950 Act if the question whether a person was
ordinarily resident in a constituency were to be tried
afresh in a court or tribunal, trying an election petition.”

iv) In 2007 (11) SCC 1 (Pothula Rama Rao v. Pendyala Venkata
Krishna Rao), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 10 as follows:

“10. The second ground urged by the appellant was
that the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the
nomination of the first respondent, as his name was
entered twice in the General Electoral Roll for ‘No.72 –
Kovvur Assembly Constituency’ at Sl. No. 797 and also at Sl.

No. 802 of Part 50. Section 18 of Representation of the
People Act, 1950 (‘1950 Act’ for short), no doubt, provides
that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the
electoral roll for any constituency, more than once. But
the question is whether the nomination of a candidate is
liable to be rejected, if his name is entered in more than
one place in the electoral roll. If the name of a voter is

http://www.judis.nic.in
79

entered more than once, the consequence is that it can be
corrected by the Electoral Registration Officer under
Section 22 of the 1950 Act either on an application or suo
moto. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines ‘elector’ in
relation to a constituency as a person whose name is
entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the
time being in force and who is not subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the 1950 Act.
Double entry of the name of a citizen in the electoral roll
of a constituency is not a ground of disqualification (for
registration in an electoral roll) under Section 16 of the
1950 Act. Nor is it a ground for rejecting the nomination
under Section 36(2) of the Act.”

v) In 1969 (2) SCC 452 (Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh and Ors.), the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 8 as follows:

“8. It is not the case of the appellant that Tarsem
Singh had incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned
therein. No other provision of law in the Act or in any
other law was brought to our notice disqualifying him from
exercising his vote. The right to vote being purely a
statutory right, the validity of any vote has to be
examined on the basis of the provisions of the Act. We
cannot travel outside those provisions to find out whether
a particular vote was a valid vote or not. In view of
Section 30 of the 1950 Act, civil courts have no jurisdiction
to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any

http://www.judis.nic.in
80

person is or is not entitled to register himself in the
electoral roll in a constituency or to question the illegality
of the action taken by or under the authority of the
electoral registration officer or any decision given by any
authority appointed under that Act for the revision of any
such roll. Part III of the 1950 Act deals with the
preparation of rolls in a constituency. The provisions
contained therein prescribe the qualifications for being
registered as a voter (Section 19), disqualifications which
disentitle a person from being registered as a voter
(Section 16), revision of the rolls (Section 21), correction
of entries in the electoral rolls (Section 22), inclusion of
the names in the electoral rolls (Section 23), appeals
against orders passed by the concerned authorities under
Sections.22 and 23 (Section 24). Sections 14 to 24 of the
1950 Act are integrated provisions. They form a complete
code by themselves in the matter of preparation and
maintenance of electoral rolls. It is clear from those
provisions that the entries found in the electoral roll are
final and they are not open to challenge either before a
civil court or before a tribunal which considers the validity
of any election. In B.M. Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy
and others, this Court came to the conclusion that the
finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in a
proceeding challenging the validity of the election.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
81

vi) In 1984 (3) SCC 649 (Ganu Ram v. Rikhi Ram Kundal), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed at paragraph 5 as follows:-

“5. Section 33 of the Act deals with the topic of
presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a
valid nomination. Sub-section (2) of the said section
which alone is relevant for our present purpose reads :

(2) In a constituency where any seat is
reserved, a candidate shall not be deemed to be
qualified to be chosen to fill 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.

It is not disputed that in the nomination form filed by the
appellant and his proposer, no written declaration had
been made specifying the caste to which the appellant
belongs and the area in relation to which that caste is a
scheduled caste of the State. But it is common ground
that along with the nomination paper the appellant had
filed as an annexure thereto a certificate issued by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin certifying that the
appellant belonged to a scheduled caste namely ‘Lohar’.

The said certificate was appended to the nomination
paper obviously with the sole purpose and intention of
making it known to the Returning Officer and all others
concerned that the appellant is filing his nomination as a

http://www.judis.nic.in
82

candidate belonging to a scheduled caste namely ‘Lohar’
and it was in proof of that assertion and for eliminating
doubt or controversy in the matter that the Sub Divisional
Magistrate’s certificate was produced. The High Court has
taken the view that since Section 33 of the Act requires
that the nomination paper must be in the prescribed form
and Form 2B is a self-contained one, the filing of any
enclosure or certificate along with the Form is not
contemplated. We are unable to agree with this view.
When the nomination paper has been made in the
prescribed form there is no legal prohibition against the
other requisite particulars being furnished in a separate
paper appended to the form instead of writing them out
in the form itself. This is very often done in the matter of
filing returns of Income-tax, Wealth-tax etc. In such cases
the annexure appended to the form should be treated as
part of the nomination paper. We are therefore of
opinion that the certificate which was produced by the
appellant as an annexure to the nomination paper has to
be treated as forming part of the nomination paper and
the declaration contained therein that the appellant
belongs to the scheduled caste of ‘Lohar’ must be
understood and treated as a declaration by the appellant
in the nomination form within the meaning of Sub-section
(2) of Section 33. We have to remember that we are
dealing with nomination papers pertaining to candidates
belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who,

http://www.judis.nic.in
83

for well known historical reasons, are unfortunately,
extremely backward socially, economically and
educationally in comparison with other sections of our
people. In such a context we consider that the Court has
to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the
provisions contained in Section 33(2) of the Act rather
than adopt a narrow, rigid, technical and purely literal
construction. In S. Sivaswami v. V. Malaikannan and
others which was also a case arising under the Act, one of
us speaking on behalf of a three Judge Bench of this Court
had occasion to make the following observations which
are apposite to the present context also :

In this context it is necessary to remember that
nearly 90 per cent of the electorate in this country
consists of illiterate and uneducated rural folk totally
unacquainted with the intricacies of the rules
technicalities of procedure pertaining to elections. Even
if the best of endeavour is made to explain to them such
complicated rules and procedures they may not be
capable of grasping and fully understanding all the
implications and actually carrying them into effect while
exercising their franchise. If the right conferred on the
people to choose their representatives to the State
Legislatures and the Parliament through the process of
free and fair elections is to be meaningful the will of the
illiterate and unsophisticated voter expressed through a
marking on the ballot paper which though not strictly

http://www.judis.nic.in
84

inside the column of the particular candidate is clearly
indicative of the identity of the candidate for whom the
vote is cast has to be respected and given its full effect.”

36. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2004(2) ALD 157,

Nimmaka Jaya Raju vs. Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju, a decision of the

Andhra High Court. Perusal of the facts and circumstances of the said case

would show that the first respondent/Returned candidate therein did not place

any documentary evidence to prove that he belongs to ‘Konda Dora’ Tribe and

that no mention in the caste that his family belongs to ‘Konda Dora’ Tribe. The

facts of the present case and the evidence let in by the first respondent are

totally different. In this case, the first respondent has filed her caste

certificate to prove that she belongs to “Parayan” community, which is

admittedly a Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the abovesaid decision is not

helping the petitioner.

37. The other citation relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 149 (2008) ELT 205,

Sh.Jaspal Singh vs. Sh.O.P.Babbar. Facts of the above case would reveal

that the challenge made was against the order of the Returning Officer

rejecting the nomination paper filed by one S.Ranjit Singh on the reason that

http://www.judis.nic.in
85

the affidavit filed by him is not completed and not attested by Notary and that

in Form 26, he did not declare as to whether he is convicted of an offence or

not. The Delhi High Court found that non compliance with Section 33(A) of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules 4A of the Conduct of Elections

Rules 1961, renders a nomination paper liable to be rejected. I do not find

that the above decision, which is factually distinguishable, would help the

petitioner herein in any manner, especially when the petitioner herein has not

questioned or raised any objection against the nomination papers of the first

respondent before the election officials at the appropriate time.

38. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.20 of

2009 dated 10.04.2013. Perusal of the facts and circumstances of the said

case would show that the election petitioner therein had established his case

against the contesting respondent therein that the caste certificate produced

by the contesting respondent is not a genuine document and that the said

respondent belongs to Dheemar caste. In this case, I have already pointed out

that the petitioner has not produced any contra evidence to disprove the claim

of the first respondent with regard to her caste supported by caste certificate

marked as exhibit. Therefore, the above decision also is not helping the

petitioner in any manner.

http://www.judis.nic.in
86

39. In view of the above stated discussions and findings, Issues (a), (b),

(c), (h), (i) (j) are answered accordingly.

Issue (d):

40. It is the case of the election petitioner that the 1st respondent

suppressed certain material facts by not disclosing the correct details therein.

It is his case that the 1st respondent filled some of the columns as “No” and

“Not applicable”. It is the contention of the election petitioner that when the

1st respondent purchased certain properties at Puducherry Union Territory

after her marriage, she did not fill up the relevant columns showing those

details.

41. A careful perusal of Ex.P9 series would show that the 1st respondent

has disclosed the details of the properties purchased by her in her name under

the caption “non agricultural land”. Therefore, the above contention of the

election petitioner as if the 1st respondent has suppressed some material facts

in Form 26 is factually incorrect. She has furnished the permanent account

number and the status regarding the income tax returns as well as the

particulars in respect of her husband. Under such circumstances, I find that the

allegation of the election petitioner that the 1st respondent made incorrect

http://www.judis.nic.in
87

particulars in Form 26 is not correct. Thus, Issue (d) is answered accordingly.

Issue (e)

42. According to the election petitioner, Form-A should have been

delivered to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the Returning Officer not later

than 3.00 p.m. on the last date of filing nomination. The election petitioner

relied on Ex.P1 information furnished by the Joint Electoral Officer on

25.08.2016 stating that Form-A and Form-B were not received from AINRC

party in their office but the said party informed through their letter dated

29.04.2016 that those forms in respect of their candidates were submitted to

the Returning Officer of the concerned Assembly Constituency within the

stipulated time. In support of the above contention, the election petitioner

examined the Chief Election Officer as P.W.7. However, P.W.2, Returning

Officer has deposed that those forms in respect of the 1st respondent were

submitted before him at 1.50 p.m on 29.04.2016. Therefore, it is evident that

Form-A and Form-B were submitted before the Returning Officer within time,

as contemplated under Rule 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and

Allotment) Order 1968. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out

that the very same issue in respect of the very same election conducted in the

year 2016 to the Union Territory of Puducherry pertaining to the same political

party of the 1st respondent was considered by this Court in Election Petition

http://www.judis.nic.in
88

No.12/2016 and by order dated 05.01.2018, this Court found that submitting

those forms to the Returning Officer is substantial compliance. At paragraph

No.59 of the said order, this Court has observed as follows:

“From a reading of Section 33 of the R.P. Act
extracted above, it is clear that the nomination paper
of a candidate sponsored by a political party needs
only one proposer and that it should be submitted in
the prescribed format before 3 p.m. on the last date
appointed by the Election Commission of India. In
other words, the nomination paper can be filed upto
2.50 p.m. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Returned candidate contended that
it will be impossible for a candidate contesting in Mahe
Constituency in Kerala and Yanam Constituency in
Andhara Pradesh to submit Form A, both to the
Returning Officer and the Chief Electoral Officer if the
mandates of Paragraph 13(d) of the Election Symbols
Order are to be followed blindly because, the office of
the Chief Electoral Officer is located in Puducherry and
therefore, a persona cannot be at two places in and
around the same time. That apart, it is common
knowledge that till the eleventh hour, there will be
scramble for party tickets and in several cases, the
party high command would announce the list or change
the list in the nick of time. In any event, the provisions
of the Election Symbols Order cannot frustrate the

http://www.judis.nic.in
89

right conferred by Section 33 of the R.P. Act to submit
the nomination papers upto 3.00 p.m. Therefore, the
Election Commission of India had stated in Paragraph
8.4.2.(q) of the Handbook which was followed by all
the Returning officers in Puducherry, that the
submission of Form A to the Returning Officer would
amount to substantial compliance. To reiterate, Form
A is not the creature of the R.P. Act or the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961, but, the creature of the Election
Symbols Order. Thus, the provisions of the Election
Symbols Order cannot cannot be interpreted in such a
manner as to frustrate the provisions of Section 33 of
the R.P.Act.”

In view of the above decision of this Court made on the very same issue,

Issue (e) is answered accordingly.

Issue (f)

43. The Election Petitioner claims that the 1st respondent belongs to

the caste called “Conemotto” and that the 1st respondent has not submitted

any document to claim her status as “Conemotto”. On the other hand, the 1st

respondent claims that she belongs to “Parayan” caste which is one of the caste

mentioned in the Schedule to the Constitution, Puducherry Scheduled Caste

Order, 1964. It is her clear case that she never belongs to “Conemotto. In

http://www.judis.nic.in
90

support of her contention, she filed caste certificate showing that she belongs

“Parayan” community. it is an admitted fact that the father of the 1st

respondent also contested the very same constituency earlier claiming him as a

person belonging to “Parayan” community. Moreover the election petitioner

only claims that he recently came to know that the 1st respondent belongs to

“Conemotto” and admitted that he did not file any document to show that the

1st respondent belongs to a different caste. In view of the above stated facts

and circumstances, I find that the petitioner has not proved by any evidence

that the 1st respondent belongs to other caste namely “Conemotto”. Thus Issue

(f) is answered accordingly.

Issue (g)

44. In view of the above discussions and facts and circumstances, this

Court is of the view that all the necessary particulars and proofs have been

produced by the 1st respondent before the Election Commission. Therefore,

her nomination has been rightly accepted by the authorities concerned,

without there being any suppression of material facts. Hence issue (g) is

answered accordingly.

45. Caste/Community, Residential/Nativity and Birth Certificates issued

http://www.judis.nic.in
91

by the competent authorities, if not proved to have been forged and that on

the other hand, they are proved to have been genuine issued by the competent

authorities, the same are to be taken as valid documents for the purpose for

which it was produced, so long as those documents were not declared as

invalid or found to be bogus by the competent forum. In this case, the first

respondent produced all those material documents before the election officials

and contested the election. Her nominations submitted at the time of election

with relevant documents were not disputed by the election petitioner before

the Returning Officer. Therefore, in this election petition, the validity of

those certificates cannot be gone into and decided, as the forum of challenge

of those documents is not the election Tribunal. What is to be seen in this

election is as to whether the certificates produced by the first

respondent/Returned candidate are true documents entitling the candidate to

contest the election. Needless to state that consideration of the genuinity of a

document is different from considering its validity. Unless and until validity of

such document is declared by the competent authority or Court of law, the

first respondent herein is entitled to act based on the genuinity of such

document.

46. This Court in Election Petition No.8 of 2011 dated 23.09.2016, by

following the decision of the Apex Court made in 2011 (1) SCC 78, Kalyan

http://www.judis.nic.in
92

Singh vs. C.P.Joshi, has held that a party to the election petition cannot seek

for a roving enquiry during the trial of the election petition and on the other

hand, such party must plead the material fact and adduce evidence to

substantiate the same so as to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the issue.

At paragraph No.17, this Court has observed as follows:

“17.At this juncture, it is to be noted that during the trial
of an election petition, a party to such proceedings cannot seek
for a roving enquiry and on the other hand, such party must
plead the material fact and adduce evidence to substantiate the
same so as to enable the court to adjudicate upon the issue.
Likewise, it is also well settled that in the absence of pleading
any evidence let in cannot be considered so also in the absence
of any evidence, in support of a pleading, such pleading cannot
be held to be proved especially, when the same is denied and
disputed by other side. The issues are framed only to see that
no party is taken by surprise in the trial and only those issues
should be addressed by the parties by letting in relevant
evidence. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in Kalyan Singh vs. C.P.Joshi, (2011) 11 SUPREME COURT
CASES 786, it has observed at paragraph Nos.17 and 28 as
follows:

“17.During the trial of an election petition, it is not
permissible for the court to permit a party to seek a roving
enquiry. The party must plead the material fact and adduce
evidence to substantiate the same so that the court may proceed
to adjudicate upon the issue.

http://www.judis.nic.in
93

..28.Therefore, in view of the above, it is evident that the
party to the election petition must plead the material fact and
substantiate its averment by adducing sufficient evidence. The
court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the issue cannot be
framed unless there are pleadings to raise the controversy on a
particular fact or law. It is, therefore, not permissible for the
court to allow the party to lead evidence which is not in the line
of the pleadings. Even if the evidence is led that is just to be
ignored as the same cannot be taken into consideration.”

Issue (k):

47. In view of the findings and observations made supra, while dealing

with all other issues, this Court is of the firm view that the election petitioner

has not made out a case in this election petition under any of the provisions

under which it was filed, for interfering with the election of the 1st

respondent in the subject matter constituency. Consequently, the petitioner is

not entitled to any other relief as well.

48. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the election

petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

http://www.judis.nic.in
94

07.02.2020

Speaking/Non Speaking
Index:Yes/No
vri/vsi

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

VRI

http://www.judis.nic.in
95

PRE DELIVERY ORDER
IN ELP NO.6 OF 2016

07.02.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation