Madras High Court
K. Raghul Gandhi vs Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan on 14 December, 2021
Author: V. Bharathidasan
Bench: V. Bharathidasan
E.L.P.No.13 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
E.L.P.No.13 of 2021
K. Raghul Gandhi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan
2. The Returning Officer,
120-Coimbatore South Assembly Constituency
and Assistant Commissioner(Central Zone),
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore.
3. The District Collector,
O/o. The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
4. The Chief Electoral Officer,
Public (Elections) Department,
Secretariat,
Fort ST George,
Chennai 600 009.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.13 of 2021
5. The Chief Election Commissioner of India,
O/o. The Chief Election Commissioner of India,
Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road,
New Delhi ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Election Petition has been filed under Section 80, 81 and
123 read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
against the election of the first respondent from 120 Assembly
Constituency in Coimbatore South, praying that the election of the first
respondent be declared to be void.
For Petitioner : Mr. U. Gokulakrishnan
ORDER
Challenging the election of the first respondent in the 120, Coimbatore South Assembly Constituency, the petitioner, who claims to be a South Zone Leader in Hindustan Janta Party and contested in the election and lost, filed the Election Petition.
2. The main allegations made in the election petition is that the returned candidate,namely, first respondent, secured 53,209 votes and the Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis E.L.P.No.13 of 2021 second highest vote was 51,481/-, and the first respondent was declared as elected. According to the petitioner, so many Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were hacked and the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were converted in favour of the returned candidate. That apart, 629 postal votes have been rejected by the Returning Officer without any re-verification. The Returning Officer also failed to secure the signature from the candidates counting agents after each round of counting the postal votes. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel would submit that, earlier the petitioner has contested as independent candidate in various local body election as well as the Assembly and Parliament election. In the election to the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, he has secured more than 2000 votes and in Wayanad Lok Sabha election held in the year 2019, he secured 845 votes, in Singanallur Legislative Assembly election held in the year 2016, he had secured 332 votes. But, in the present election, he has secured only 73 votes and hence, he suspect some foul play in the election. The petitioner reliably understand that, many of the Electronic Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis E.L.P.No.13 of 2021 Voting Machines (EVMs) were hacked by the first respondent and it materially affected the election. The learned counsel further submitted that while counting, the postal votes, nearly 629 postal votes have been rejected without re-verification, which is also materially affected the election.
4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records carefully.
5. The election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner and it cannot be used as a handle for vexatious purpose. The person who challenges the election in an election petition should plead and state all the material facts in the election petition for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action, if any one of the material facts is omitted, the election petition is liable to be rejected. All the facts which are essential to cloth the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis E.L.P.No.13 of 2021 single material fact will violate the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the election petition must be dismissed for want of cause of action. It is also well settled that a election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the cause of action.
6. In the instant case, the election petition has been filed with vague allegations without even disclosing the material facts which are essential to set aside the election. Vague allegations that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) have been hacked and postal ballots have been rejected without any details are not sufficient to go for a trial.
7. That apart, the contention of the election petitioner that he has got less votes than the votes obtained in the previous election itself is not a ground to set aside the election. In the above circumstances, the petitioner miserably failed to state any material facts in the election petition and he does not furnish the cause of action to maintain the election petition.
Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis E.L.P.No.13 of 2021
8. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that these vague allegations are not sufficient to try the election petition. Hence, this Court find no merit in the election petition and hence this election petition is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly this election petition is dismissed.
14.12.2021 Index: Yes/No mrp Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis E.L.P.No.13 of 2021 V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp Election Petition No. 13 of 2021 14.12.2021 Page No.7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis