Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(viii) The first respondent / returned candidate, contested in the AIADMK party symbol, which was the ruling political party at that time. When the model code of conduct was in force, the first respondent along with her Chief Election Agent, Mr.Kaliyappan and other party office bearers opened Election Office at Rasipuram-Athur road near Rasipuram New Bus stand on 09.04.2016, for which, the first respondent, hired 2000 voters from Rasipuram Assembly Constituency through various commercial vehicles and also distributed dhotis and sarees bearing her party's flag colour border and apart from that they were given Rs.200/- as gift.

(ix) Immediately, the petitioner's party Rasipuram Town Secretary Mr.Shankar (P.W.2), lodged a complaint to the http://www.judis.nic.in Returning Officer regarding modal code of conduct violations. But no action was taken. The opening of the election office was widely published in the local news paper 'Dinakaran' dated 10.04.2016.

(x) On 20.04.2016, the ruling political party leader Ms.J.Jayalalitha held election campaign meeting at Salem, where she introduced her party candidates. The first respondent was one among them. For the above meeting, the first respondent has gathered huge crowd from Rasipuram Assembly Constituency and took them to Salem Town for the said election meeting. The first respondent herself has engaged in transporting as many as 5,000 voters in various commercial vehicles and also paid Rs.500/- per head. The transportation of voters to the meeting place from Rasipuram was personally supervised by one Mr.Raju, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram Taluk. Immediately, Mr.Shankar (P.W.2) lodged a complaint to the Returning Officer (Rasipuram), but he has expressed his inability to take action. This was also published in the local Tamil daily 'Dinakaran'. http://www.judis.nic.in

(v) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to ?

5. During trial, Mr.V.P.Duraisamy, the petitioner herein, examined himself as P.W.1 and he also examined three more witnesses viz., Mr.N.R.Shankar as P.W.2, Mr.N.Boopathy as P.W.3 http://www.judis.nic.in and Mr.K.S.Rajamanickam as P.W.4 and marked as many as 6 documents viz., Ex.P1 (Schedule for General Election for 2016), Ex.P2 (RTI application for disk from 22.04.2016 to 19.05.2016 – Election Expenses Monitoring Wing), Ex.P3 (RTI application for campaigning cost of Chief Minister), Ex.P4 (RTI application to provide compact disk for the period from 22.04.2016 to 19.05.2016 of the Election Expenses Monitoring Wing), Ex.P5 (RTI application for compact disk for the period from 22.04.2016 to 19.05.2016 from Election Expenses Monitoring Wing) and Ex.P6 (Complaint to DGP (Election) dated 05.05.2016. On the side of the first respondent, Dr.V.Saroja examined herself as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. Mr.N.S.Balasubramanian, Returning Officer of Rasipuram Assembly Constituency was examined as C.W.1, and marked Ex.C1 a copy of the permission granted to AIADMK party to open Election Office at Rasipuram.

16. So far as the allegation of opening of election office by the first respondent and distribution of money to 200 voters and http://www.judis.nic.in free distribution of sarees and dhotis is concerned, P.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that only P.W.2, Mr.N.R.Shankar (P.W.2) who was functioning as Rasipuram Town Secretary of DMK party has informed him about the opening of election office and a news item also has been published in the Dinakaran newspaper dated 09.04.2016, and he has no personal knowledge about it. Further P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the election office was opened on 09.04.2016 and 2000 voters from Rasipuram Assembly Constituency were brought there and dhotis and sarees were distributed to them and the first respondent personally paid Rs.200/- each to 200 voters. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent that at the time of opening of election office on 09.04.2016, the first respondent was not announced as a candidate and she has been named as the candidate of Rasipuram Assembly Constituency only on 26.04.2016 and she has filed her nomination papers on 28.04.2016. The Returning Officer (C.W.1) in his evidence has categorically stated that the first respondent did not apply for opening of the election office and the AIADMK party only has sought for permission and accordingly permission was granted to http://www.judis.nic.in the AIADMK Party for opening the election office at Rasipuram. The copy of permission granted for opening of the election office is marked as Ex.C1. From a perusal of Ex.C1, it could be seen that against the column 'name of the candidate' it was mentioned as 'not finalised'. Hence, it is clear that on the date when permission for opening the election office was sought for, the first respondent was not officially declared as AIADMK candidate for Rasipuram Assembly Constituency and permission was not granted on her request. Regarding distribution of money, dhotis and sarees on that date, except the oral evidence of P.W.2, there is no other evidence available on record to establish the same. Even though it is stated by P.W.2 that he has given a complaint regarding the same to the Returning Officer, the said complaint was not marked in evidence before this Court. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the above allegation has not been substantiated by material evidence.