Madras High Court
V.Ramu vs Duraimurugan on 7 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.06.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.07.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
and O.A.Nos.675, 741, 742 of 2021 & 751 of 2023
V.Ramu
S/o. Mr. N.B.Varadharajalu,
No.3/6, Kalleri, Gandhinagar, Kondasamudram,
Gudiyattam.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Duraimurugan
S/o. Mr.Duraisamy,
No.7, 5th East Coast Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632 006.
2. K. Raja
S/o. Mr. Kuppan,
No.24, Ambedkar Street, Kalinjur, Gandhi
Nagar, Vellore 632 006.
3. K.P. Arumugam
S/o. Mr. Ponurangam,
824, Bajanai Kovil Street, Kangeyanellore,
Vellore 632 006.
4. M. Sudharsan
S/o. Mr. G. Manikannan,
No.22, Narayanaswamy, First Street, Pennathur,
Vellore 632 006.
Page 1 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
5. S. Thirukkumaran
S/o. Mr. Sampath
1/119, Bajar Street, Lalapet, Walaja, Ranipet
632 405.
6. A.S. Raja
S/o. Mr. A.Sagadeva
No.27/25, Gejaraja Mudaliyar Street,
Dharapadavedu, Katpadi 632 007.
7. R.S. Sridhar
S/o. Mr. K.R. Subramaniam,
No.1, Kalarmedu Street, Pallikuppam
Village(Post), Katpadi 632 007.
8. J. Anandhi
D/o. Mr. Jayaseelan,
13, Budder Street, Thiruvallur Nagar, Katpadi,
Vellore - 632 007.
9. P. Dhanajayan
S/o. Mr. Parthasarathi Naidu,
5/24, Ramar Kovil Street, Athingavariyur,
Ponnai 632 514.
10.R. Baskaran
S/o. Mr.K. Ramasami,
No.2/16, 16th East Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Katpadi Vellore 632 006.
11.Raman
S/o. Mr. Ramasami
No.166, Valluvar Street, Viruthampet, Gandhi
Nagar, Vellore 632 006.
12.K. Ramu
S/o. Mr. Kandaswamy
1/124, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kugaiyanellore 0
Post, Thiruvalam, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore
District 632 515.
Page 2 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
13.D. Ramu
S/o. Mr. Durai
No.42, Kasthuri Bai Street, Dharapadaveedu,
Vellore 632 006.
14.V. Vinayagam
S/o. E.Vijiyan,
No.29/A, Small Street, Vallimalai, Katpadi,
Vellore District 632 520
15.The Returning Officer
No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency,
Special Deputy Collector, Vellore District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Election Petition is filed under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84, 98(b)(c) r/w
Section 100, 100(i)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, read with the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the Madras High Court
(Election Petitions) Rules, 1967, to (a) Declare the election of the Returned candidate
namely Mr.Duraimurugan, the 1st Respondent in No. 40, Katpadi Assembly
Constituency to be void. (b) Order reverification and re-count of all votes polled by
postal Ballots in No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency (c) Order re-count of all
votes polled by Electronic Voting Machines covered under Polling Station Nos.14,
110A (W), 215A(W), 219 and 180M in No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency. (d)
Declare the Petitioner as the returned Candidate for No.40, Katpadi Assembly
Constituency for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections, 2021 (e) Direct the
Respondents to pay the cost of this Election Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
For M/s. Wilson Associates
For R2 to R14 : No appearance
For 15 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
For M/s.G.R. Associates
Page 3 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
ORDER
This Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner to declare the
election of the Returned Candidate namely Mr.Duraimurugan, the first Respondent
herein, in No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency to be void and to order
reverification and re-count of all votes polled by postal Ballots in No.40, Katpadi
Assembly Constituency and Order re-count of all votes polled by Electronic Voting
Machines covered under Polling Station Nos.4, 110A (W), 215A(W), 219 and 180M
in No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency and to declare the petitioner as the
Returned Candidate for No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency for the Tamil Nadu
Assembly Elections, 2021 and for the cost of this Election Petition.
2. The election petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner contested
for the post of Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as “MLA”) in
the Assembly Election, 2021, in No.40 Katpadi Assembly Constituency, as per the
election notification dated 26.02.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India.
The petitioner contested as a candidate of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam political party under the symbol of “two leaves”. The first respondent also
contested in the same assembly election for the post of MLA as a candidate of
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam under the symbol of “rising sun”. The election was held
on 06.04.2021 and the votes polled by Electronic Voting Machine (hereinafter
Page 4 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
referred to as “EVM”) and by postal ballot counted on 02.05.2021. After completion
of counting, the first respondent was declared as elected candidate by the election
officer on 02.05.2021. As per the certificate, he had secured 85,140 votes and the
petitioner had secured 84,394 votes. The total number of votes in the said
constituency are 2,48,567 in which, polled votes are 1,86,763. Therefore, the first
respondent was declared as elected candidate by a margin of 746 votes.
3. The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent herein
under Sections 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(10(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “RP Act”) read with the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) on the grounds as follows :-
(i) The declaration of the election of the first respondent has been materially
affected by improper reception of votes which are void by postal votes and by non
compliance with the provisions and law.
(ii) The counting of votes was in direct violation of and non-compliance of the
provisions and law. The counting process was not conducted in the manner as
envisaged and mandated under the Rules, thereby materially affecting the result of the
election of the first respondent.
(iii) The counting of votes polled by EVM in the 349 polling stations in
Katpadi assembly constituency were counted in 26th round. However, the fifteenth
respondent viz., the Returning Officer failed to conduct the counting of postal votes
Page 5 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
in accordance with the RP Act and Rules and failed to refer the Handbook forReturning Officer issued by the Election Commission of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
counting of votes was commenced at 8.00 a.m., and was completed at about 8.30 p.m.
However, it was not done in accordance with the Rule 54-A of the Rules, thereby
materially affecting the result of the election of the first respondent. The Returning
Officer failed to verify the postal votes as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 54-A
of the Rules. The counting of EVMs were not conducted as per the Rule 66-A, 55-C
and 56-C of the Rules. EVMs of polling station in 4, 15A(W), 19M, 110A(W), 180M
were not counted. The petitioner raised objection for non-counting of the above
mentioned five EVMs. However, the Returning Officer refused to consider the
objection raised by the petitioner. Further, the Returning Officer failed to receive the
written complaint lodged by the petitioner.
4.1. He further submitted that in round 25, the petitioner had secured 82,793
votes and the first respondent had secured 82,447 votes and the petitioner was leading
by 346 votes. Thereafter, the counting of above mentioned EVMs were taken up in
round 26. Total number of votes counted in round 26 is 1804 in which, the petitioner
had secured 882 votes and the first respondent had secured 796 votes. At that
juncture, the Returning Officer failed to count the EVM in polling station
Page 6 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
No.110A(W) and informed that the total number of postal votes are 3349 out of
which, 37 votes were polled in NOTA. In the above postal votes, the petitioner
secured 719 votes and the first respondent had secured 1897 votes. Therefore, the
Returning Officer without counting the EVM in the polling station No.110A(W),
declared the first respondent as elected candidate. Therefore, the Returning Officer
ought to have ordered re-count of the postal votes and to count the votes polled in
polling station No.110A(W) in accordance with Rules.
5. While pending the Election Petition, the first respondent filed two
applications in O.A.Nos.741 & 742 of 2021. The application in O.A.No.741 of 2021
has been filed to strike of the paragraph Nos.11 to 34 in the election petition in
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021 and the application in O.A.No.742 of 2021 has been filed to reject
the above election petition.
6. Though the first respondent filed those applications, the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent submitted that the election petition itself shall
become infructuous since the term of the assembly for which the election in question
was conducted has now expired. Hence, nothing survives in the election petition and
it is liable to be dismissed as infructuous, when the election petition is not filed on the
ground of any corrupt practice against the elected candidate. But the above election
petition has been filed on the ground of improper reception of votes which are void,
Page 7 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
refusal of accepting the representation and non compliance of provision of the
Constitution of India or the Act or to any Act or Orders made under the Act.
6.1. In respect of the rejection of election petition is concerned the learned
Counsel for the first respondent submits that, the averments contained in the election
petition are wholly vague and bereft of materials to meet the requirements under
Sections 81, 83, 86 and 100 of the RP Act. It does not disclose any cause of action
and no material facts have been pleaded as such, no ground is made out to assail the
first respondent election. There is absolutely no allegations as against the first
respondent who contested in the election and also returned as elected as MLA. The
petitioner raised grounds only as against the Returning Officer that too challenging
the counting process. It was further alleged that the counting was done without
following the RP Act, Rules, Constitution of India and the orders of the Election
Commission of India under the RP Act. Therefore, there is no cause of action or
ground described to attract any material defects. Therefore, the election petition is
liable to be rejected. Without any material facts, the petitioner simply averts that the
first respondent election is materially affected by the improper reception of votes by
postal votes which are void and by non compliance with the provisions of the law,
Rules and orders passed by the Election Commissions of India. When the petitioner
makes allegations, it must state the full material facts relating to the averments and
allegations raised in the election petition in order to enable the successful candidate to
Page 8 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
defend himself and further to weed out vexatious and frivolous election petition.
Without stating any reasons, the petitioner simply averts that the Returning Officer
failed to follow any law and rules. Further the petitioner failed to avert the specific
violation of any law and rule or any order passed by the Election Commission of
India.
6.2. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to object on the date of
counting itself about the non-counting of EVM in polling station No.110A(W) and
the irregularities while counting the postal votes. After declaration of results, the
petitioner had sent a complaint that too by registered post after the period of 13 days.
Therefore there is absolutely no cause of action to file this election petition. Further
the petitioner failed to state what was the violation, which rule was violated, what
time the violation occurred, how many postal covers were not scrutinized properly,
what were their serial numbers etc. Therefore, the allegations were made without any
material.
6.3. He also submits that the election petition itself has been filed under
Sections 100, 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(10(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People
Act. If the election petition is filed on the ground of corrupt practice then the election
petition would survive even after the expiry of term of MLA. When the election
petition is filed on other grounds such as improper reception of votes, refusal of re-
Page 9 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
counting the votes and non compliance of provision of the Act, Rules and orders
made under the Act, it cannot be sustained after the expiry of term. In support of his
contention, he relied upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and this Court.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that though the term of the assembly had expired, the election petitioner cannot be
construed as infructuous. As the first respondent was elected as the Returned
Candidate, he is entitled to all the benefits that applies to a MLA. Further, the election
petition has been filed for declaration of election of the first respondent as void.
Therefore, though the term of the assembly got expired, the petition will survive so as
to prevent the elected candidates who were elected through wrongful means from
wrongfully enjoying the benefits that applies to a MLA. The election petition has
been filed and the averments disclose the cause of action and other non-compliance
of the requirements mandated under the provisions of Act and Rules. The counting of
EVMs were not conducted as per the Rule 66-A, 55-C and 56-C of the Rules and the
counting of votes had been conducted in violation of mandatory provision of the Act
and Rules. As a result, the election itself is materially affected insofar as the returned
candidate viz., the first respondent in the election petition. Even while counting the
postal votes, the petitioner raised specific objection that the postal votes had not been
counted in accordance with the Rules since, the postal ballet cover did not contain the
Page 10 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
sale of the gazetted officer. Therefore, the said votes ought to have been declared as
void and ought not to have been counted.
7.1. The counting of vote was scheduled to be conducted in 25 rounds.
However, the EVMs in the polling station Nos.4, 15A(W), 19M, 110A(W) and 180M
were not counted for the reason best known to the Returning Officer and it is in
violation of the Act and the Rules. In fact, the petitioner was personally present in the
counting hall at the time of counting of votes and raised objection for violation of
Rule 56-D. However, the objection was denied by the Returning Officer and the
Returning Officer refused to receive any written complaint. In round No.25, the
petitioner had secured 82,793 votes and the first respondent had secured 82,447
votes. In round No.26, as per the Rules, the remaining EVMs were taken up for
counting and 1804 votes were counted in which, the petitioner had secured 882 votes
and the first respondent had secured 796 votes. Even then, the Returning Officer
failed to count the votes polled in the polling station No.110A(W). It is clear violation
of Rule 66A of the Rules. Though the petitioner repeatedly requested to re-count the
postal votes and count the EVM pertaining to polling station No.110A(W), the
Returning Officer failed to consider the request and declared the results by declaring
the first respondent as a Returned Candidate for the Katpadi Assembly Constituency.
Page 11 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
7.2. He further submitted that the counting of votes conducted on 02.05.2021
is in blatant non-compliance of the provision under Sections 100, 100(1)(d)(iii) and
100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act and the Rules. Therefore the non-compliance has
materially affected the result of the election of the petitioner. Therefore, the serious
lapses in the counting process and non compliance of Rule 54-A of the Rules, had
materially affected the results of the election. At the same time, though the terms of
the assembly got expired, the election petition would still survive insofar as the other
benefits to the MLA are concerned and as such it cannot be said that the election
petition is infructuous. Therefore, the election petition is very much maintainable and
there is absolutely no ground to reject the same. Even assuming that the petitioner
failed to avert any material fact, the election petition is very much maintainable since
it has been filed on the grounds under Sections 100, 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv) and
101 of the RP Act and those grounds do not require any material fact. In support of
his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
material placed before this Court.
9. On the basis of the documents available on records and on the
submissions made on either side, the following points are arose for consideration :-
Page 12 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
(i) Whether the election petition is liable to be rejected for the want of
material facts?
(ii) Whether the election petition has become infructuous, since the period of
term of assembly of the year 2021 got expired?
10. Admittedly, the election petition has been filed under Sections 100,
100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the RP Act and it is not filed for any corrupt
practice committed by the returned candidate or his agent or any other persons
associated with him. The crux of the allegations are that the Returning Officer failed
to count the EVMs for the polling station in Nos. 4, 15A(W), 19M, 110A(W) & 180
M. Further the Returning Officer did not count the postal votes properly as per the
Rules. Though the petitioner raised objections and requested for re-counting of postal
votes, the Returning Officer refused to receive his complaint and failed to re-count
the postal votes.
Issue No.1:-
11. On perusal of the avernments made in the election petition, the petitioner
failed to provide any material fact insofar as the allegations of improper counting of
postal votes. The petitioner also failed to provide the number of postal votes which
were allegedly not counted and failed to provide any material in respect of the postal
votes which were allegedly not containing the seal of the gazetted officer. Though the
Page 13 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
petitioner averred that he had given written complaint to the Returning Officer during
the counting of votes, in order to substantiate the same no material evidence was
produced by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner failed to produce any
complaint lodged before the Returning Office on the date of counting of votes.
12. The counting of votes was held on 02.05.2021. On the same day, the first
respondent was declared as Returned Candidate for the Katpadi Constituency as
MLA in the year 2021. No complaint was lodged on the date of counting of votes.
But the petitioner lodged complaint only on 15.05.2021 i.e., after a period of 13 days
from the date of declaration of the Returned Candidate. Further, the petitioner also
failed to produce any acknowledgment to show that the petitioner submitted
complaint on 15.05.2021 to the authority concerned. It shows that only for the
purpose of filing this Election Petition, the petitioner had sent a representation to the
authority concerned on 15.05.2021 that too by registered post. Therefore, the
avernments made in the election petition are vague, bald and bereft of material facts.
13. Further, the Election Petition is not concised with the Section 83 of the
RP Act. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 83 of the RP Act,
hereunder :-
“83. Contents of petition.— (1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
Page 14 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that
the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the
names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of pleadings:
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the
prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice
and the particulars thereof.]
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be
signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the
petition.”
Thus it is clear that the election petition shall contain concise statement of thematerial facts on which the petitioner relies upon to challenge the election in
question. Though the election petition has not been filed on the ground of corrupt
practice, it shall contain concise statement of the material facts. However, this
election petition does not disclose any material particulars with regard to postal votes
which were objected by the petitioner with regards to absence of gazetted officer’s
seal. The petitioner failed to aver the number of votes which were not containing the
seal of the gazetted officer and the total number of votes which are liable to be
rejected. Therefore, the election petition itself doesn’t disclose any cause of action to
file the election petition to challenge the election of the first respondent.
Page 15 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
14. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in (2014)
10 SCC 547 in the case of C.P.John Vs. Babu M.Palissery & ors., in which the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“18. When we read Section 83, the substantive part of Section
83(1) consists of three important elements, namely, that an Election
Petition should contain a concise statement of material facts which an
election petitioner relies upon. The emphasis is on the material facts
which should be stated in a concise form. Under Section 83(1)(b) it is
stipulated that the Election Petition should set forth full particulars of
any corrupt practice which is alleged by the petitioner. A reading of
the said sub-clause 83(1)(b) is to the effect that such particulars
should be complete in every respect and when it relates to an
allegation of corrupt practice it should specifically state the names of
the parties who alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and
also the date and place where such corrupt practice was committed.
In other words, the particulars relating to corrupt practice should not
be lacking in any respect. One who reads the averments relating to
corrupt practice should be in a position to gather every minute detail
about the alleged corrupt practice such as the names of the persons,
the nature of the alleged corrupt practice indulged in by such person
or persons, the place, the date, the time and every other detail relating
to the alleged corrupt practice.
19. To put it differently, when the Election Petition is taken
up for consideration, the Court which deals with such an Election
Petition, should be in a position to know in exactitude as to what is
the corrupt practice alleged as against the parties without giving any
Page 16 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
room for doubt as to the nature of such allegation, the parties
involved, the date, time and the place etc. so that the party against
whom such allegation is made is in a position to explain or defend any
such allegation without giving scope for any speculation. In that
context, both Sections 83(1)(a) and (1)(b) and the proviso play a very
key role since the election petitioner cannot simply raise an allegation
of corrupt practice and get away with it, inasmuch as the affidavit to
be filed in respect of corrupt practice should specifically support the
facts pleaded, as well as, the material particulars furnished. Rule 94A
of the Rules in turn stipulates that the affidavit should be in the
prescribed Form 25 and should be sworn before the Magistrate of 1st
class or a notary or the Commissioner of Oaths and makes it
mandatory for the election petitioner to comply with the said
requirement statutorily. The format of the affidavit as prescribed in
Form No.25 elaborates as to the requirement of specifically
mentioning the paragraphs where the statement of facts are contained
and also the other paragraphs where material particulars relating to
such corrupt practices are alleged. It also mentions as to which of
those statement of facts and material particulars are based on the
personal knowledge of the election petitioner and such of those
statements and particulars that are made based on the information
gained by the election petitioner.
20. Therefore, a conspectus reading of Section 83(1)(a) read
along with its proviso of the Act, as well as, Rule 94A and Form No.
25 of the Rules make the legal position clear that in the filing of an
Election Petition challenging the successful election of a candidate,
the election petitioner should take extra care and leave no room for
doubt while making any allegation of corrupt practice indulged in by
Page 17 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
the successful candidate and that he cannot be later on heard to state
that the allegations were generally spoken to or as discussed
sporadically and on that basis the petition came to be filed. In other
words, unless and until the election petitioner comes forward with a
definite plea of his case that the allegation of corrupt practice is
supported by legally acceptable material evidence without an iota of
doubt as to such allegation, the Election Petition cannot be
entertained and will have to be rejected at the threshold. It will be
relevant to state that since the successful candidate in an election has
got the support of the majority of the voters who cast their votes in his
favour, the success gained by a candidate in a public election cannot
be allowed to be called in question by any unsuccessful candidate by
making frivolous or baseless allegations and thereby unnecessarily
drag the successful candidate to the Court proceedings and make
waste of his precious time, which would have otherwise been devoted
for the welfare of the members of his constituency. Therefore, while
deciding the issue raised, we wish to keep in mind the above lofty
ideas, with which the provisions contained in Section 83(1) read along
with Section 86 came to be incorporated while deciding this appeal.”
15. The phrase “material facts” has been defined neither in the Act nor in the
Code. Therefore, it has been understood in general terms to be the entire bundle of
facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Therefore, compliance of the
Section 83 of the RP Act is mandatory which requires first a concise statement of
material facts and then the fullest possible particulars. The omission of even a single
material fact shall lead to an incomplete cause of action and statement of claim
Page 18 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
becomes bad. The function of particulars is show in a full picture of the cause ofaction so that the opposite party can understand the case he will have to meet. Further
the material facts and particulars are distinct matters. The material facts will mention
statements of facts and particulars will set out the names of persons with date, time
and place. Therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed for violation of
mandatory provision under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
16. The petitioner averred that counting of votes was not conducted in
accordance with Act, Rules and orders. However, the petitioner failed to state the
irregularities and who committed them. Further, whether the Returned Candidate had
any knowledge about the same or the role played by him in the alleged irregularities
was not clearly stated by the petitioner. In fact, during the process of counting, the
counting agents of all the candidates, election observer and also the Returning
Officers were very much present to ensure that the counting process is done in
accordance with law. There is no piece of evidence available on recordq to show that
on the date of counting, the petitioner raised any objection with regard to the
allegation that the counting was not done properly and some of the postal votes did
not contain the gazetted officer’s seal and that it should be rejected. Therefore, all the
allegations are vague, bald and bereft of material facts and particulars.
Page 19 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
17. Further the petitioner averred that the postal votes were not counted in
accordance with Rule 54-A of the Rules, thereby materially affecting the results of
the election. This averment is also bald since, since the election petitioner reveal in
certaininty that the Returned Candidate had knowledge or role in the alleged
irregularities. The petitioner further alleged that EVMs were not counted in polling
station Nos.4, 15A(W), 19M, 110A(W) & 180M. Except the polling station
No.110A(W), other polling stations EVMs were taken up for counting and the votes
were counted during the round No.2 and 18. Insofar as the polling station
No.110A(W) is concerned, it was taken up for counting in round No.11. However, it
was not counted on account of mismatch of votes. On the date of polling, after the
end of voting, when the polling officer verified the total number of votes polled in the
said EVM, in order to record the same in Form 17-C, it was found that the votes
recorded in Form 17-A and the total number of votes cast by the voters did not match.
Total number of votes polled in the said EVM was 514 votes. However, it was shown
as 564 votes. Therefore, it was noted that 50 extra votes were reflected in the EVM
and the reason for the same was due to the mock polls polled on the date of polling
before commencement of actual polling and the same was recorded as extra votes in
the Form 17-C. Therefore, it was not counted for the reason that the mock polling
votes were not deleted before the commencement of actual polling. After completion
of counting of EVMs, the last and final EVM to be counted was the EVM in polling
station No.110A(W). After completion of all the rounds including the postal votes,
Page 20 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
the margin of victory between the petitioner and the elected candidate was 764. The
total number of votes polled in the polling station No.110A(W) was 514, after
deducting the 50 votes polled during the mock polling. The victory margin was more
than the votes recorded in polling station No.110A(W) and therefore, the said EVM
was not taken up for counting as per the instructions issued by the Election
Commission of India dated 21.05.2019.
18. On perusal of the notification issued by the Election Commission of
India dated 21.05.2019, it is revealed that if the winning margin is more than the total
votes polled in a polling station the results will be declared without counting the votes
polled in such polling station. The said EVM in polling station No.110A(W) was not
counted and as such the first respondent was declared as the Returned Candidate for
the Katpadi Assembly Constituency. In fact, on the date of declaration of results, it
was duly accepted by the petitioner and he failed to raise his objections therein.
However, he raised his objection only on 15.05.2021 by way of representation which
was sent through registered post.
19. As per the document No.4 viz., Form No.20-final result sheet, it is
revealed that the votes polled in polling station Nos.4, 15A(W), 19M & 180M were
counted and votes polled in polling Station No.110A(W) alone was not counted.
Therefore, the entire allegations and the averments made in the election petition are
Page 21 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
vague, vexatious, frivolous, bereft of material facts and particulars and does not
disclose any cause of action to maintain the election petition. Hence, the issue No.1 is
answered in favour of the first respondent in the election petition.
Issue No.2:-
20. Insofar as the survival of the election petition is concerned, admittedly
the period of term of assembly for which the election in question was held had
expired in the month of May, 2026. When the election petition was not filed on the
ground of corrupt practice as against the first respondent, the rest of the ground would
be rendered infructuous because of the subsequent development such as expiry of
term of assemble itself. Thereafter, fresh election has now been conducted in which,
both the petitioner and the first respondent had contested in the very same
constituency viz., No.40 Katpadi Assembly Constituency and both had lost in their
election to the post of MLA of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, nothing survives in this
election petition to proceed further since this Court is of the considered view that the
election petition has become infructuous.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relied upon the
judgment reported in (2005) 12 SCC 211 in the case of Mundrika Singh Yadav Vs.
Shiv Bachan Yadav & ors., in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as
follows :-
Page 22 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
“1.An election petition under Sections 80 and 80-A of the
Representation 1.A of the People Act, 1951 filed by the appellant was
dismissed by the High Court. A perusal of the judgment of the High
Court shows that the appellant had sought for the relief of re-count of
ballot papers. The High Court on trial found a case in that regard
having not been made out. The election to the Bihar State Legislative
Assembly forming subject-matter of the election petition was held in
the year 2000. The term of the Legislative Assembly is over. Fresh
elections are being held. No relief can be allowed to the appellant in
this appeal even if this appeal is allowed. The appeal is rendered
infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.”
Therefore, when the term of legislative assembly is over and subsequent freshelections have been held, no relief can be allowed to the election petitioner in the
election petition and this judgment duly confirms the direction of this Court.
22. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment dated 24.06.2022, passed by
this Court in E.L.P.No.17 of 2016 in the case of B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs. Anitha
R.Radhakrishnan & ors., which held as follows :-
“20. Let this Court shall also consider the decisions relied on by
the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant.
20.1.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in Azhar Hussain v.
Rajiv Gandhi [AIR 1986 SC 1253] has observed as under:
“An election petition can be and must be dismissed under the
provisions of Civil Procedure Code, if the mandatory requirements
enjoyed by Section 83 to incorporate the materials facts andPage 23 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition
are not complied with. The code of Civil Procedure applies to trial of
an election petition by virtue of Section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is
applicable, the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of
powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11(a).
Therefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of
the Act which authorizes dismissal of election petitions in certain
petitions in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under
CPC cannot be exercised. An election petition can be summarily
dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the
powers under the Civil Procedure Code and it is a settled law that
omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of
action and that an election petition without the material facts relating
to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all.”(emphasis
supplied)
20.2. In Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi
[AIR 1987 SC 1577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:“8.On a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the
Act, it is apparent that those paragraphs of a petition which do not
disclose any cause of action are liable to be struck off under Order VI
Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to
strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or
delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the Court to
examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written
statement and points out the defects. If the court on examination of the
plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause
of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. Order VI
Page 24 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
Rule 16 itself empowers the Court to strike out pleadings at any stage
of the proceedings which may even be before the filing of the written
statement by the respondent or commencement of the trial. If the Court
is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of
action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the
proceedings, the court need not wait for the filing of the written
statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and
strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the court
finds that no triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to
reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11. (emphasis
supplied)
14.The Representation of the People Act is a complete and self
contained code within which any rights claimed in relation to an
election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the extent as permissible by
Section 87 of the Act. The scheme of the Act as noticed earlier would
show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided
by Section 80 on the grounds as contained in Section 100 of the Act.
Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an
election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and
set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are
regulated by Section 83 and it makes it obligatory on the election
petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each
corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make
out a ground under Section 100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold.
Allegations of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges, it
is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so
that the returned candidate may know the case he has to meet. If the
Page 25 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
allegations are vague and general and the particulars of corrupt
practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the election petition
cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The emphasis of law is to
avoid a fishing and roving inquiry.”
20.3. In P.H.Pandian v. P.Veldurai and Others [(2013) 4 SCC
685] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:“It is a settled
practice of Supreme Court not to pronounce upon matters which are
only of an academic interest. Once the charge of corrupt practice fails,
rest of the appeal would be rendered infructuous because fresh
elections have already taken place and the old Assembly is no longer
in existence. Even if the appellant was to succeed on the issue that the
returned candidate had a subsisting contract with the Panchayat
Union and the State Government and was, therefore, disqualified to be
chosen for the seat under Section 9-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, it would only be of an academic interest.” (emphasis
supplied)
20.4. Following the aforesaid decisions, a learned Single Judge
of this Court in ELP.No.7 of 2011 dated 27.04.2016 [V.Anbazhagan v.
A.Laser and Others] has elaborately observed as under:
“50. In Mundrika Singh Yadav vs. Shiv Bachan Yadav and
others ((2005) 12 SCC 211), an election petition under Sections 80 and
80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 filed by the
appellant was dismissed by the High Court. In the above said election
petition, the appellant had sought for the relief of recount of ballot
papers. The High Court on trial found a case in that regard having not
been made out. The election to the Bihar State Assembly forming
subject-matter of the election petition was held in the year 2000. The
term of the Legislative Assembly was over. Fresh elections were being
Page 26 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
held. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court has held that no relief
could be allowed to the appellant in this appeal even if this appeal is
allowed. The appeal was rendered infructuous and was dismissed
accordingly.
51. In P.H. Pandian vs. P. Veldurai and another((2013) 14 SCC
685), an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 was filed questioning the judgment and order made
by this Court in the election petition in ELP.No.1 of 1996 on
29.12.1999.
52. In this case, the Apex Court has observed that though fresh
elections have since been held to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and
to an extent this appeal has been rendered infructuous, the manner in
which the election petition was dealt with by the High Court causes us
concern and that necessitates our making reference to some salient
facts.
53. Ultimately, the Apex Court has observed that it is a settled
practice of Supreme Court not to pronounce upon matters which are
only of an academic interest. Once the charge of corrupt practice fails,
rest of the appeal would be rendered infructuous because fresh
elections have already taken place and the old Assembly is no longer
in existence.
Even if the appellant was to succeed on the issue that the
returned candidate had a subsisting contract with the Panchayat
Union and the State Government and was, therefore, disqualified to be
chosen for the seat under Section 9-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, it would only be of an academic interest.
54. In Shankar Pendaam vs. Smt. Jyoti Dhurve (Judgment
delivered on 18.7.2014 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Page 27 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
Jabalpur Bench in the Election Petition No.45 of 2009).
55. In this case, the election petition was filed by the petitioner
therein under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 for declaring the election of the respondent to be
void.
56. This case is an identical one to that of the present case on
hand. During the course of arguments of the learned Senior Counsel,
who was appearing on behalf of the respondent before the Jabalpur
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court had submitted that the said
election petition had become infructuous because the term of the
respondent had come to an end by efflux of time on 16th May, 2014
and thereafter, general elections had also taken place in May, 2014
and the respondent had already been elected from the same
constituency of Loksabha. Thus, the grounds taken in this election
petition have been rendered of academic importance and the academic
questions should not ordinarily be decided by the Courts.
57. It was further submitted that this election petition had not
been filed by the petitioner on the ground of corrupt practice.
Therefore, it was urged that the election petition might be dismissed as
infructuous.
58. The learned Senior Counsel had made reference to the
following decisions of the Apex Court:- a. Dhartipakar Madan Lal
Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi (1987 (Supp) SCC 93). b. Sushma Swaraj
vs. Raj Kumar Patel in SLP (Civil) No.2951
of 2014 decided on 5.5.2014.
59. Having taken into consideration of the related facts and
circumstances, the learned Single Judge of the Jabalpur Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:-
Page 28 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021“Considering the fact that the tenure of the respondent has
already come to an end by the efflux of time and the matter has been
rendered of academic importance. In view of the aforesaid discussion
and in the light of the aforesaid decision of Apex Court in Dhartipakar
Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi (supra) and Sushma Swaraj vs.
Rajkumar Patel (supra), I am of the considered view that nothing
further survives in this matter. This petition has become infructuous,
same is hereby dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.”
60. In a case between Chandra Mohan Shukla and Anil
Dhirubhai Ambani and 11 others in the Election Petition No.6 of 2004
decided by the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Mr. Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents
had raised a preliminary objection with submission that keeping in
view of the fact that election petition challenging the same election has
been dismissed by this Court and also since the term of elected
representation of the Rajya Sabha has expired, petition should be
dismissed as infructuous.
61. It was also submitted that the court should not adjudicate an
academic issue and in any case the petitioner shall not be entitled for
any benefit.
62. The learned Single Judge of the said High Court, has
observed as under:-
“22. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel
for the parties it appears that whenever in a petition, which includes
election petition, the relief claimed with regard to main issue involved
becomes redundant or infructuous then for other relief courts may
exercise its discretion and may not proceed further in case right of the
Page 29 of 34https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
plaintiff or dependent satisfied or no grievance remained pending
against defendant or respondents because of the change of
circumstances. Court may use its discretion to drop the proceeding and
may not proceed further in a matter even if, some relief of academic
nature stand survive… ” (emphasis supplied)
21. The decisions cited supra lay down the following principles:
(i) An election petition without the material facts relating to a
corrupt practice is not an election petition at all ;
(ii) An election petition can be and must be dismissed under the
Civil Procedure Code, if the mandatory requirements enjoyed by
Section 83 of RP Act, 1951 to incorporate the material facts and
particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition
are not complied with;
(iii) If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars
of corrupt practice are not stated in the pleadings, the trial of the
election petition cannot proceed for want of cause of action. The
emphasis of law is to avoid a fishing and roving inquiry;
(iv) Once the charge of corrupt practice fails, rest of the appeal
would be rendered infructuous because fresh elections have already
taken place and the old Assembly is no longer in existence.
22. ………….
CONCLUSION
23. Now coming back to the present case on hand, as discussed
in the earlier paragraphs, the respondent/election petitioner has not
specifically alleged corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act,
1951 in the election petition. The respondent/election petitioner is
unable to make out any allegation of corrupt practice directly in the
election petition and as a Law Graduate and a Voter of the
Page 30 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
Tiruchendur Assembly Constituency, he has made a faint attempt
indirectly by taking the plea of undue influence by way of non-
disclosure of material information. Therefore, this Court has come to
the conclusion that there is no specific allegation of corrupt practice in
the election petition. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Azhar
Hussain case (cited supra), an election petition without the material
fact relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all.
Hence, question No.1 is answered in favour of the applicant.
QUESTION NO.2
24. Once the charge of corrupt practice fails, the election
petition would be rendered infructuous, because fresh elections have
already taken place and the old Assembly is no longer is in existence
[P.H. Pandian case (cited supra)]. In the case on hand, the old
Assembly is no longer is in existence, as the term of office has come to
an end and fresh elections were held for the 16th Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly on 06.04.2021, in which the applicant has been
elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly, representing No.215,
Tiruchendur Constituency. In the light of the decision in P.H.Pandian
case, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
Hence, question No.2 is answered accordingly.”
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The old assembly is
no longer in existence, since the term of office had already expired and subsequently,
a fresh election had been held for the 17 th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on
23.04.2026 in which, both the petitioner as well as the first respondent had contested
and lost in the post of MLA in the assembly constituency of Katpadi. Accordingly, the
issue No.2 is also answered in favour of the first respondent in the election petition.
Page 31 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
Conclusion :-
23. In view of the above discussions, the Original Applications in
O.A.No.741 of 2021 stands closed and O.A.No.742 of 2021 stands allowed.
Consequently, the Election Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. The connected
Original Applications in O.A.Nos.675 of 2021 & 751 of 2023 are closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
07.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
Page 32 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
To
The Returning Officer,
No.40, Katpadi Assembly Constituency,
Special Deputy Collector, Vellore District.
Page 33 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
ORDER IN
E.L.P.No.4 of 2021
and O.A.Nos.675, 741, 742 of 2021 & 751 of 2023
07.07.2026
Page 34 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
