N T VELUSAMI THEVAR Vs. S RAJA NAINAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli allowing election petition No. 109 of 1957, which had been referred to him for disposal. That was a petition filed by an elector in the Alangalam constituency seeking to set aside the election of N. T. Velusami Thevar who had been declared elected to that constituency in the election held to the Madras State Assembly in 1957. For the said seat six persons filed nomination papers. The nominations were scrutinised on 1-2-1957. The nominations of five of them were accepted but the nominations of the fourth, S. Arunachala, was rejected. Two of the five candidates whose nominations had been accepted withdrew from the contest and the other three went to the polls and Velusami Thevar was declared elected by a majority of votes. It is to set aside the election of the said Velusami Thevar that the petition out of which this appeal arises was filed. The sole ground on which the petition was founded was that the nomination paper of Arunachala had been wrongly rejected. In the election petition there were four respondents, the first respondent being Velusami Thevar, the returned candidate, respondents 2 and 3 being the two other candidates who had contested the election but had been defeated and the fourth respondent was Arunachala whose nomination had been rejected.

(2.) It may be mentioned that at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers an objection was raised on behalf of the second respondent on the ground that Arunachala was employed as the Head master of the National Training School, Tiruchendur which was run with the Government grants in aid and as such he held an office of profit in a concern in which the State Government had financial interest. The Returning Officer upheld the objection because Arunachala did not appear to demonstrate how the objection was not tenable. He therefore rejected the nomination of Arunachala. At the trial of the election petition the ground on which the second respondent had objected to the nomination of the fourth respondent Arunachala was practically given up but instead there were other objections which were raised, particularly by the first respondent, the returned candidate, in support of the order of rejection passed by the Returning Officer. Several grounds were alleged by the first respondent on which the fourth respondent was disqualified to stand for election. The election Tribunal held that the fourth respondent was not disqualified on any such grounds and consequently his nomination had been improperly rejected. He therefore set aside the election of the first respondent and directed a fresh election. The returned candidate, the first respondent in the election petition, is the appellant before us.

(3.) On his behalf learned counsel pressed before us three grounds on which the fourth respondent was disqualified on the date on which he filed his nomination paper. We shall deal with the grounds seriatim.