Madras High Court
A.Murugan vs The Tamil Nadu State Election ... on 16 September, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2015
and W.P.(MD)No.9597 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015
A.Murugan ... Petitioner in both WPs
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
rep.by its Commissioner,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehuru Salai,
Arumbakkam, Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,
Arumbakkam, Chennai.
3.The District Collector/
District Election Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli.
5.Mrs.Bhuvaneswari,
Mayor, Corporation of Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli.
... Respondents in both Wps.
W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the letter note dated
17.03.2015 in Na.Ka.No.7/9689/2015 on the file of the third respondent and
quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take
suitable action against the fifth respondent.
W.P.(MD).No.9597 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Quo-warrant to the
fifth respondent Mrs.Bhuvaneswari as to in what capacity she is holding the
office of Mayor, Corporation of Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioner : M/s.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
for Mr.Pon.Karthikeyan
^For R.1 and 2 : Mr.K.Chellapandiyan
assisted
by Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
For R.3 : Mr.K.Guru
Addl.Govt.Pleader
For R.4 : Mr.Ayiram K.Selvakumar
For R.5 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for
Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj.
:ORDER
The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same. He has preferred two Writ Petitions. In W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015, the petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the letter note dated 17.03.2015 in Na.Ka.No.7/9689/2015 on the file of the third respondent, by which order, the third respondent viz., the District Collector / District Election Officer had rejected the request of the petitioner to take action against the fifth respondent and in W.P.(MD).No.9597 of 2015, he has prayed for a Writ of quo- warrant against the fifth respondent Mrs.Bhuvaneswari as to in what capacity she is holding the office of Mayor, Corporation of Tirunelveli.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the Writ Petitions are as follows:
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2004, the fifth respondent herein married one Krishnakumar at Valliyur Murugan Temple, Tirunelveli. The petitioner herein along with one Palani, Raja, Pandi and sister of Krishnakumar and her husband stood as witness to the above marriage. Subsequently, misunderstanding had arisen between them and they got separated. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the fifth respondent started living with one Kanagarajeshwaran. Now, the fifth respondent is having two children through the said Kanagarajeshwaran. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the said Krishnakumar and the petitioner is still subsisting, which has not been dissolved through a court of law.
2.2. While the situation stood thus, before the first respondent herein, the fifth respondent submitted an application to contest the post of Mayor of Tirunelveli Corporation pursuant to the notification dated 27.08.2014 issued by the first respondent. In the said application, the fifth respondent had mentioned the name of the said Kanagarajeshwaran as her husband and suppressed her marriage with the said Krishnakumar. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent had filed a false affidavit before the Election Officer by suppressing her marriage with the said Krishnakumar and mentioned Kanagarajeshwaran, as her husband. Hence, the fifth respondent has played fraud upon the Election Commission by suppressing the truth by filing a false affidavit and thereby contested the Mayor election.
2.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent vide letter dated 05.08.2014 issued a Statutory Order in respect of conducting of elections to rural and urban local bodies election in the State. The first respondent had specifically stated that every candidate shall furnish full and complete information and the Election Officer can take action under Section 177 of IPC and under Section 195 of CRPC. The fifth respondent has full knowledge about the consequences of giving information to the Election Commissioner but she had purposely given a false information about her husband's name as Kanaga Rajeswaran instead of Krishnakumar.
2.4. Stating all these facts, the petitioner made a representation on 15.11.2014 to the respondents 1 to 3 with all the relevant documents and facts of the marriage with the fifth respondent and prayed for a suitable action against her. After the receipt of the said representation, the second respondent had forwarded the same to the third respondent, by proceedings dated 19.02.2014 for taking necessary action against the fifth respondent.
Though the respondents 1 to 4 are duty bound to take action against the fifth respondent, they have not taken any action in respect of the petitioner's representation, instead, the second respondent has forwarded the same to the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2053 of 2015 before this Court seeking a direction to the third respondent to take suitable action against the fifth respondent on the basis of the letter sent by the second respondent. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition instead of taking action against the fifth respondent based on the representation made by the petitioner, the third respondent through his letter dated 17.03.2015 stated that no action need be taken on the petitioner's representation as there is no prima facie case in the complaint made by the petitioner. Hence, challenging the said order, W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015 has been filed.
3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that publication of notice of election and commencement of receipt of nomination to the post of Mayor was made on 28.08.2014 and the last date of making nomination was on 04.09.2014. Scrutiny was held on 05.09.2014. The date of withdrawal of candidature was on 08.09.2014. There was no poll to the post of Mayor, Tirunelveli Corporation as all the contestants withdrew and the Mayor assumed charge on 24.09.2014. Nomination papers along with duly notarised affidavit filed by the fifth respondent herein were displayed on the Notice Board of the office of Returning Officer/Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation as per the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (herein after referred as TNSEC) Notification SO.6/2014/TNSEC/PE-1, dated 05.08.2014 and the same was communicated through press and media. At that time, no objection was raised about the alleged bigamy of the fifth respondent. Unless the bigamy is proved and sentenced by the Court of competent jurisdiction, mere allegations by the petitioner cannot be considered as a basis for taking any action. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2014 was not presented at the time of scrutiny but after a long gap of time, making it transparent that this petition was submitted with a mala fide intention. The petitioner had not adhered to the provisions of Section 62A of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (25 of 1981), which is applicable to Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation also. Section 62A(1) read as follows:-
?No election of a (Mayor or a Councilor) shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge having jurisdiction within forty-five days from the date of publication of the result of the election under Section 67?.
4. As per the provisions of law, the petitioner ought to have agitated the matter before the District Court, Tirunelveli, but he has failed to do so. Similarly, the question of disqualification of Mayor on the grounds of Moral delinquency or bigamy does not arise as per Section 58(1) of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (25 of 1981) (applicable to Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation also). The alleged bigamy has not been challenged before the Court of law. The petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2014 has no merit or ground and therefore, it was not considered for taking any action against the fifth respondent. Further, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the election on the basis of the morality of the fifth respondent and file this petition before this Court. Even the, action was taken on the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2014 and the same has been sent to the Secretary, TNSEC, Chennai, by the second respondent herein and the petitioner through the order of the District Collector Tirunelveli Roc.No.N7/9689/ 2015 dated 17.03.2015.
5. The fifth respondent has also filed a separate counter affidavit inter alia stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The first respondent issued a notification on 27.08.2014 announcing for election which will be conducted for the post of Mayor, Tirunelveli Corporation.
Hence, she has filed a nomination form and the same was also accepted by the competent authority. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is as against the acceptance of the nomination form of the fifth respondent and hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petitions. If that being so, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an election original petition challenging the election of the fifth respondent as a Mayor within the prescribed time found in the Act. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has preferred Quo Warranto before this Court through W.P.(MD).No.9597 of 2015. Thus, it is a clear abuse of legal process. The information regarding the marital status cannot be a bar on the discharge of public responsibilities of Mayor. According to the Writ Petition, if any false information has been furnished and if it is an electoral offence, then it is open to the petitioner to initiate prosecution. In fact, the fifth respondent has not misled any body as alleged by the petitioner and as set out in the Writ Petition. The free exercise of voter has not been infringed by the fifth respondent in any manner. The Writ Petitioner has not demonstrated before this Court as to how the informed choice of the voter has been scuttled by the fifth respondent even assuming that the case projected by the petitioner is true. Therefore, she prayed for the dismissal of both the Writ Petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the marriage was subsisting between the said Krishnakumar and the fifth respondent herein, the fifth respondent has falsely misled the Election Commission at the time of contesting election as Mayor in Tirunelveli Corporation pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent on 27.08.2014. To that effect, there is not even denial in the counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. In the nomination form, she has stated one Kanagarajeswaran as husband instead of Krishnakumar. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court regarding the notification issued by the Election Commission and submitted that the purpose of filing an affidavit along with the nomination papers is to effectuate the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The citizens are supposed to have the necessary information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a candidate to furnish the relevant information. Further, by referring to the notification issued by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the candidate informs the correct particulars, the voters may not know the real picture of an electoral candidate. In the instant case, the information provided by the fifth respondent is not genuine and is opposed to electoral norms. Sensing that, the petitioner had made a representation to the second respondent, who in turn, without understanding the seriousness of the matter, has passed the impugned order. The purpose of referring to the instructions of the Election Commission is that the affidavit sworn by the candidate has to be put in public domain so that the electorate can know, when the information is well within the knowledge of the candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if people know the half truth it is a direct attack on democracy. If a candidate has not provided the information as regards his/her candidature, it is an attempt to suppress, effort to misguide and keep the people in the dark. Further, concealment or suppression of fact deprives the voters to make an informed and advised choice as a consequence of which it would come with the compartment of direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, on the part of the candidate.
6.1. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, which are as follows:-
(i)In the case of K.Venkatachalam Vs. A.Swamickan and another reported in (1999) 4 SCC 526.
(ii)In the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Election Commissioner and four others reported in 2009 (3) CTC 446, Krishnamoorthhy Vs. Sivakumar and others.
(iii)In the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467.
6.2. The learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that initially, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2053 of 2015 only to consider and dispose of his representation dated 15.11.2014. Pursuant to which, the third respondent has passed an order dated 17.03.2015 which is now under challenge before this Court. Even assuming for a moment if the fifth respondent has married the said Krishnakumar, in the affidavit, it is not pleaded by the petitioner that he came to know about the said fact only after the election was conducted. When that being so, he ought to have pointed out the same at the time of scrutiny of nomination form. In this regard, the learned AAG, drew the attention of this Court regarding Section 62-A(1) of the Coimbatore Municipality Act, which is also applicable to the Tirunelveli Municipality Act. Therefore, the proper remedy under the said power is only to file an election petition. Since the petitioner has failed to file an election petition, this Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
7. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the information furnished by the petitioner at the most can be construed as an incorrect and improper acceptance only and it will not tantamount to giving any serious misguidance as alleged by the petitioner. He further invited the attention of this Court as to Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, wherein there is a bar for interference in the election matters. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, by inviting the attention of this Court as to Section 62(b)(d)(i) of the Coimbatore Municipalities Act the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that at the maximum it could be treated only as improper acceptance of an nomination. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. In support of his contention, he placed a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 2142, between Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Vs The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner Office of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission & Others.
8. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as regards the maintainability of this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is an extraordinary circumstances, he can very well invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as per judgment reported in 2007 (2) L.W.1, All India Anna Dravida Munnertra Kazhagam Vs. The State Election Commission and four others.
9. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have paid my anxious consideration and perused the materials available on record.
10. Before venturing into this matter, it is necessary to deal with the judgment relied on by the petitioner.
10.1. In the case of K.Venkatachalam Vs. A.Swamickan and another reported in (1999) 4 SCC 526, this Court entertained the said Writ Petition and dismissed the claim of the appellant therein with costs holding that if the appellant is allowed to continue to sit and vote in the Assembly it would amount to fraud on the Constitution. The said Writ Petition came to be entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason that the appellant was elected by impersonation. On being questioned by a third party, the Supreme Court swung into the action and heavily came upon the appellant therein. But, in the case on hand, there is no such impersonation.
10.2. In the case of Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar, reported in 2009 (3) CTC 446, this Court dismissed the case of the petitioner therein stating that the petitioner has only informed about the Crime Number and conveniently, he omitted the charge sheet pending against him and therefore, the learned Single Judge felt that the petitioner had purposely suppressed the real fact restraining the common man to know about his candidature. Admittedly, there is no charge sheet pending against the fifth respondent in the present case.
10.3. When the case referred above was taken an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had dismissed the claim of the petitioner therein with costs of Rs.50,000/- on account of the fact that even though he had disclosed a criminal case pending against him, he had not disclosed the details of eight other cases pending against him and therefore, his election was rightly declared to be null and void by the Supreme Court. The said judgment has no relevance to the present case. As already observed, there is no criminal case against the fifth respondent herein.
10.4. In the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. The State Election Commissioner and four others reported in 2007-2-L.W.1, also this Court entertained a batch of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but divergent views were expressed by the Division Bench of this Court.
11. In all those cases cited by the petitioner, this Court as well as the Supreme Court invoked its widest powers on account of the fact that the candidatures therein suppressed their criminal back ground and in some cases impersonation took place and therefore, the Court, had imposed costs in certain cases without hesitation.
12. From the facts pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition as well as the judgments relied on by both sides, necessarily, this Court has to answer three questions:-
(i) Whether this Writ Petition is maintainable?
(ii)Have any extraordinary circumstances arisen in this case as per the judgments cited supra so as enable this Court to invoke its jurisdiction?
(iii)Can disputed questions of fact be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, in an election matter?
13. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9597 of 2015 will have only a cascading effect pursuant to the order made in W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015, and hence, it is better to decide the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015.
14. Though very many contentions have been raised on the factual aspects of the matter this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with the factual aspects of the matter as to whether the fifth respondent has suppressed regarding her earlier marriage and filed a false information before the competent authority at the time of contesting the election.
15. At the out set, this Court deems it fit to deal with the aspect of maintainability of this Writ Petition. No doubt, this Court as well as the Supreme Court have come to the rescue of our democracy with its plenary powers by preventing the criminals entering into the Legislative Bodies by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, whenever extraordinary circumstances arose. But, in normal Circumstances, the only way is to file an Election Petition within the limitation period. Such remedy available to the candidate cannot be allowed to be bye-passed on any ground except extraordinary circumstances. In the case on hand, already results were announced and the fifth respondent had assumed charge as Mayor on 24.09.2014. There is not even an averment in the affidavits as well as in the supporting affidavit filed by the said Krishnakumar that he came to know about bigamy only recently. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015 was filed on 30.03.2015 and the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9597 of 2015 was filed on 12.06.2015. Nearly after six months, from the date of peculiar circumstances arising charge as Mayor, these Writ Petitions have been filed. The purport of petitions is that they should be filed in a bona fide manner. This Court could find something amiss on this aspect. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner cannot be equated with the present case on hand, when there is a specific bar to entertain a Writ Petition without warranting an extraordinary circumstance. As one step ahead, for questioning the marital status of the fifth respondent, first of all, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and has not produced any record to show whether any criminal cases are pending against the fifth respondent. On this aspect, the affidavit is bereft of details. He has not even uttered a word in his affidavit that the earlier marriage of the fifth respondent was known pursuant to the fifth respondent being elected as a Mayor.
15.1. Even assuming that the allegations are true against the fifth respondent, the petitioner should have only filed an Election Petition within 45 days and without there being any such petition, I do not find any such extraordinary circumstances warranted in this case to entertain this Writ Petition. The proper remedy for the petitioner is only to go before filing an Election Petition before the District Judge who is having jurisdiction.
15.2. In this regard, a reference under Section 62-A of the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation which is applicable to the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation shall be taken into consideration that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge having jurisdiction within 45 days from the date of publication of the result of the election under Section 67. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the election at the time of filing nomination by the fifth respondent. The petitioner has not given any proper explanation for not furnishing any objection at the relevant point of time. The question of extraordinary circumstances has to be decided only as per the facts and circumstances of an individual case. Such a situation does not arise here.
15.3. Further, this Court finds that as per Section 58(1) of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (25 of 1981) (applicable to Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation also) a person who has been sentenced by a criminal court to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of more than two years for any offence other than an offence of a political character or an offence not involving moral delinquency (such sentence not having been reversed or the offence pardoned) shall be disqualified for election as a Councillor (while the sentence is in force and for six years from the date of the expiration of the sentence). Therefore, the main ground raised by the petitioner that bigamy is a disqualification cannot be accepted unless the same is proved before the Court of law.
15.4. One more reference could be placed that under Article 243ZG(b)of the Constitution of India which prohibits challenge to election to the Municipal Council otherwise than by way of filing an Election Petition. The only remedy is that the aggrieved party has to file an Election Petition within a time frame.
15.5. At the risk of repetition, the fifth respondent has not been convicted by any Court of law or any cases are pending against her. There is no marriage certificate produced to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a non-disclosure on her part. This again would obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and such jurisdiction is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases where the situation so compels. The petitioner cannot take shelter in the case on hand that it is of an extraordinary circumstances so as to entertain this Writ Petition. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the term 'Extraordinary' means that which would not have been foreseeable to someone of normal prudence. Further, a highly unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event. Similarly, 'Extraordinary circumstances' means an unexpected event happens that stops a service that could not have been prevented if reasonable measures had been taken. But, in the instant case, I do not find such extraordinary circumstances in the case on hand. Therefore, the petitioner cannot bye-pass the remedy already enunciated in the judgment of this Court as well as the law laid down in this regard.
15.6. As already observed earlier, in some of the cases, a Writ Petition in an election matter is maintainable in case there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, warranting interference. Therefore, this Court felt that absolutely there are no extraordinary circumstances that had arisen in this case.
15.7. Finally, in a catena of decisions, this Court as well as the Supreme Court, time and again, has reiterated the fact that the disputed questions of fact can never be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to say that whether the fourth respondent married one Krishnakumar in the year 2004 or whether the fifth respondent has married one Kanagarajeshwaran, while the earlier marriage was in existence or not? Regarding this, a roving enquiry cannot conducted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that the Civil forum is the right course of action. At the time of nomination, unless some objection or materials are produced before him, the Returning Officer on his own cannot conduct a detailed enquiry. Therefore, the third question also falls through.
15.8. A perusal of the judgment on both sides would remind me the fact that this Court is required to be very circumspect in the matter of this nature and interfere only under extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding the fact that an alternative remedy is available. Such extraordinary circumstances would obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case where the enormity of the situation so compels.
15.9. In the absence of any conviction by the competent Court as against the fifth respondent, even if it is ultimately proved, there was any non-disclosure of fact or the affidavit filed by the candidate is false or if there is suppression, at the maximum it could be held that the nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and such nomination can be declared as null and void by the District Judge as per Section 62-B(d)(i) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 in the election petition. In this connection, a reference could be placed in the case of Kisan Shankar Santhorre Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant, reported in (2014) 0 Supreme (SC) 52968, wherein at Paragraph No.38, it has been held as follows:-
?38.When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the returning officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. Present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector.
In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non- disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not certain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms.Meeenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination.?
Hence, the question of bigamy on the ground of moral delinquency cannot be questioned at this stage. On this ground also, this Court does not want to entertain this Writ Petition.
15.10. Since this Court is of the view that the petitioner could not get through the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4864 of 2015 and hence, the question of considering Quo Warranto would not arise in this matter.
16. In view of the foregoing discussions as stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the District Collector / District Election officer dated 17.03.2015. The order impugned in this Writ Petition is sustained in all respects. Ex consequenti, both the Writ Petitions, being sans substance, stands dismissed along with the miscellaneous petition. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehuru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.
3.The District Collector/ District Election Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.
5.Mrs.Bhuvaneswari, Mayor, Corporation of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli..