Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed an application from K.Pandiarajan, minister for Tamil official language and Tamil culture, which sought to reject the election petition filed by the defeated DMK candidate S.M.Nasar, challenging his election from the Avadi assembly constituency during the May 2016 elections.
Pointing out that even after a lapse of two years, there was no counter statement filed, Justice M.V.Muralidaran posted the main election petition to November 16 for ex-parte evidence.
Concurring with the submissions of senior counsel P.Wilson, appearing for Nasar, the judge also rejected another application from Pandiarajan, which sought to delete certain paragraphs in the election petition, containing allegations.
The judge said the present election petition discloses material facts and especially corrupt practice and also the date and place of corrupt practice have been specifically pleaded. Further, names of the persons giving bribe, receiving bribe, the place, date and time of the bribe were all pleaded. When such material facts were pleaded in the election petition, the elected candidate was bound to defend himself in the election petition, the judge added.
The judge said the scanning of the election petition shows that Nasar has clearly pleaded complete details of corrupt practice which could constitute a cause of action as contemplated by section 100 of the Representation of People Act and Nasar also further furnished the material facts and other details of the alleged corrupt practice. The allegations relating to corrupt practice stated in the election petition do prima facie constitute corrupt practice. The election petition was drafted with material facts and/or particulars and also constitutes a cause of action. “For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the election petition clearly makes out cause of action against the returned candidate (Pandiarajan). Therefore, the returned candidate was not right in seeking striking out of some of the paragraphs in the election petition in as much as there are triable issues to be considered in the election petition”, the judge added.
The judge made it clear that the views expressed by this court were only prima facie views and this court has not gone into the merits of the allegations set out in the election petition as the same were matter of evidence.
