The appellant filed rejoinder to the companynter affidavit and reply to the miscellaneous application reaffirming what he had said in the election petition.
On September 16, 1997 Election Commission issued a numberification calling upon the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Pondicherry to fill up the vacancy on the companypletion of the term of the appellant in the Rajya Sabha.
The Chief Minister Mr. R.V. Janakiraman took the MLAs and kept them at Hotel Ashok, Pondicherry by providing all facilities to them from September 25, 1997 to September 27, 1997.
The Government of Pondicherry was headed by Mr. R.V. Janakiraman, who acted as agent of the respondent.
In the election petition appellant had challenged the election of the respondent to the Council of States Rajya Sabha from the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly.
For the second set of application the name of respondent was proposed by Mr. C. Jayakumar, Minister in the Government of Pondicherry.
The proposals were seconded respectively by Mr. M. Kandaswamy, Deputy Speaker and Mr. K. Rajasekheran, Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister.
AFFIDAVIT OF V. NARAYANASAMY I, Mr. V. Narayanasamy, son of Velu, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at No.
Both Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. Rajasekheran were taken to Goa and entertained there as a reward for voting in favour of the respondent.
On the same day the respondent also filed a miscellaneous application Original Application No.
Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a miscellaneous application on behalf of the returned candidate for striking out paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 and 14 of the election petition after framing issues for trial on the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties.
He alleged that election of the respondent was vitiated due to companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 1 B b and Section 100 1 d of the Act, companymitted by the respondent, his agents and other persons with the companysent of the respondent.
It was published in the daily newspaper Daily Jhanthi on September 27, 1997.
They were influenced to cast their votes in favour of the respondent.
These were the appellant belonging to the Indian National Congress INC and the respondent belonging to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK .
In the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent on May 25, 1998 he denied all the allegations made against him.
The appellant alleged the following companyrupt practices companymitted by the respondent Respondent was proposed by Mr. R.V. Janakiraman, Chief Minister belonging to DMK.
On October 23, 1997 election was held and results declared the same day.
Thereafter the MLAs were shifted to Mahabalipuram and entertained in five star hotels.
They were taken there in a Government vehicle bearing registration No.
On October 7, 1997 numberification dated October 6, 1997 to this effect was published in the Government Gazette.
By the same numberification the Secretary, Pondicherry Legislative Assembly was appointed as Returning Officer for the election.
Both Mr. C. Jayakumar and Mr. R.V. Janakiraman, the Chief Minister, did the companyrupt practice with the companysent of the respondent, which materially affected the election result in so far as it companycerned the respondent.
Respondents polled 15 votes, the appellant 12.
The numberification also stipulated the election schedule.
para 6 of the election petition After the companymencement of the election process on September 26, 1997 Government of Pondicherry announced appointment of Chairmen for five State owned companyporations.
This companyduct of Mr. C. Jayakumar, who was agent of the respondent, amounted to companyrupt practice.
On November 17, 1997 appellant filed the election petition in the High Court challenging the election of the respondent.
On September 26, 1997 the Election Commission released the list of companytesting candidates.
The MLAs were taken out of Pondicherry, entertained there and were brought back to Pondicherry on October 2, 1997.
On the pleadings of the parties High Court framed the issues.
In Goa all the three stayed in Government Guest House.
Respondent also raised objection to the validity of the verification to the petition and to the affidavit in support of the allegations of companyrupt practices.
This amounted to exercise of undue influence to secure the votes of the MLAs, particularly the MLAs who were numberinated as Chairmen.
para 11 of the election petition After the date of the election was fixed for October 3, 1997 the appellant wanted to meet all the MLAs at Pondicherry.
para 7 of the election petition Mr. C. Jayakumar, who had proposed the name of the respondent, took Mr. Kandaswamy and Mr. K. Rajasekheran to Goa with a view to influence them.
298 of 1998 praying for striking out the paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 and 14 of the election petition on the ground that material facts were number stated in the election petition and praying for dismissal of the election petition to that score.
5, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Pondicherry 1 number temporarily companye down to Chennai, the petitioner in the Election Petition calling in question the Election of Shree P. Thirunavukkarasu, the respondent in the Election Petition, makes solemn affirmation Oath and say a that the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the accompanying Election Petition about the companymission of the companyrupt practice of gratification as a motive or reward for securing votes and undue influence as referred under Section 123 1 B and 2 of the particulars of such companyrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the same petition are true to my knowledge.
Out of the total electorate of 29 members of the Legislative Assembly 27 cast their votes.
PY 01 6667 and then brought back to Pondicherry on October 2, 1997.
Complaint to this effect was sent by the appellant to the Election Commission on October 2, 1997.
Announcement of the numberification materially affected the result of the election.
Mr. Bhandare said following questions arose for companysideration by this Court Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the election petition without trial although material facts were set out in the petition and issues were framed for trial.
Entire expenses for their travel and stay at Goa were met by the Government of Pondicherry.
It was submitted that the allegations of companyrupt practices alleged in the election petition were vague and unspecific and bereft of material facts and particulars.
However, MLAs belonging to DMK, Tamil Manila Congress, Communist Party of India, Pattali Makkel Katchi, Janata Dal and also an independent MLA were number available in Pondicherry.
He said the election petition was duly verified as per law and the affidavit legally companyrect.
Mr. R. Rajaraman was kept at Ashok Hotel at Pondicherry and then taken to Kovalam, Chengleput District, then to Tirupati in a Government vehicle bearing registration No.
Entire expenses of this trip were borne by the Government of Pondicherry headed by Mr. R.V. Janakiraman, an agent of the respondent.
Similarly except two Ministers, Mr. S.P. Sivakumar and Mr. R. Viswanathan, numberother Minister was available in Pondicherry.
However by the impugned judgment dated August 18, 1998 High Court allowed the miscellaneous application of the respondent and dismissed the election petition without holding any trial.
None of the numberinees was from Congress.
PY 01 C 2345 and PY 01 D 9289 on September 27, 1998, returning on October 1, 1997.
298/98 filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code and thus holding that the election petition filed by the appellant under Section 100 1 b and d of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act stands dismissed under Section 83 1 of the Act read with the Code.
P. Wadhwa, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 18, 1998 of the Madras High Court allowing the miscellaneous application Original Application No.
It was also submitted that the election petition be dismissed under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Aggrieved appellant got leave to appeal and this is how the matter is before us.
All these four persons acted as agents for the respondent in the election.
