D RAMACHANDRAN Vs. R V JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Election Petition E.P. 3/1996 on a preliminary issue, the appellant has approached this Court.

(2.) In the general elections held in 1996 to the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry, the first respondent was elected from No. 7 Nellithope Constituency with 8803 votes. The appellant secured 7354 votes while the votes polled by respondents 2 to 7 are not worthy of mentioning. The 8th respondent in this appeal is the Returning Officer. The appeal is contested by the first respondent whose application O.A. No. 36/87 for striking out paras 6 to 10, 11 to 18, 19, 20, 26, 31 and 32 of the Election Petition and consequent rejection of the said petition at the threshold without going to trial was allowed by the High Court.

(3.) In the Election Petition, the appellant made the following allegations. The first respondent and his family were not residents of No. 7, Nellithope Assembly Constituency but the first respondent managed to get the names recorded as voters in the constituency. The first respondent indulged in character assassination against the appellant personally attacking him in T.V. interview, in printed pamphlets distributed through his agents and workers with his consent and knowledge and in the election campaign meetings. The 1st respondent deliberately and purposely violated the relevant rules and regulations. The 1st respondent incurred expenditure in excess of the permitted limit of Rs. 30,000/- and did not disclose all the expenses in the accounts. The first respondent utilised the service of Government servants who canvassed for him in the elections. There were 3216 names in the voters list who could not have polled at all as 1455 were not available at the addresses mentioned, 1554 had gone out of Pondicherry and some of them were even out of India while 207 were dead. Though it was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer who had informed the concerned polling officers of polling booths, 2000 of them had been shown to have polled their votes. The first respondent had indulged in several corrupt practices as a result of which the results of the election were materially affected. The appellant prayed for declaring the election of the first respondent to be void and declaring himself to be valildly elected to the assembly from the constituency in question.