P H PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN Vs. P VELDURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who lost the General Election to Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency filed this petition as against the returned candidate, the respondent herein and the Returning Officer, Cheranmahadevi, seeking for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate, the respondent herein from Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency in the election held on 8.5.2006 to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as null and void.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Returning Officer, Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency, who was figuring as second respondent, has been struck off from the array of respondents vide order dated 29.9.2006 in O.A.No.771 of 2006.

(3.) THE respondent has averred to in the counter affidavit filed by him as follows:- THE respondent was not having any subsisting contract as on the date of his nomination as well as on the date of scrutiny of the nomination paper. It is denied that the procedures contemplated under the said Government Order have to be strictly followed before termination of the contract for contesting the election. Even assuming without conceding that the conditions enumerated in the said Government Order is not followed, that will not nullify the termination of the contract, if any, made. THE Divisional Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, Nagercoil terminated the contract on 17.4.2006 and freezed and forfeited the deposits available with the Divisional Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, Nagercoil for crediting into Government account. No agreement was executed by the respondent with the Divisional Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, Tirunelveli and the work order was cancelled. THErefore, there is no question of any subsisting contract as far as the works relating to Tirunelveli Division is concerned. Only a procedure meant to be followed by the subordinate officials is contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.4682 Public Works Department dated 16.11.1951. Even assuming without conceding that the said Government Order was not followed, that will not nullify the termination order issued by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, Nagercoil on 7.4.2006. Even otherwise, the said procedure has been followed while terminating the contract. THE respondent is no longer a registered contractor with the Tamil Nadu State Highways Department. Nor does he have any subsisting contract in respect of the works referred to in the Election Petition. THE balance work not executed by the respondent was completed by the substitute contractor S.Rajagopalan on the same terms and conditions in which the respondent agreed to execute the work initially without any loss to the Government. It is denied that there was no alternative contractor nominated by the respondent. Even though the disqualification has to be reckoned only on the date of scrutiny, even on the date of nomination, there was no disqualification as far as the respondent is concerned. THE appointment of the substitute contractor on the same terms and conditions is the job of the Department. In fact, no payment was made to the respondent by the Governemnt either by cash or by cheque after 17.4.2006. THErefore, the respondent would pray that the Election Petition may be dismissed.