R PARASAKTHI Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

(3.) NOW I shall consider whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of specific provision for filing a separate Election Petition questioning the commissions or omissions on the part of the Returning Officer. Though the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he filed his nomination paper before the second respondent on 24.9.2001 after complying with the provisions under Rule 26 of the Rules, it is seen from the counter affidavit of the second respondent that on scrutiny, the Assistant Returning Officer, who was appointed to conduct the election of Vellakavi Panchayat, Kodaikanal Panchayat Union, found some defect in the nomination papers. It is also specifically stated that the petitioner was also not present at the time of scrutiny of his nomination paper, hence this nomination was rejected after making the following endorsement in the nomination paper: