It was further submitted by them that companysequent to the aforesaid direction, it was for the said Returning Officers to apply their mind while companysidering the allegations of false declaration so made or suppression of facts by the Appellant.
The Appellant had to implead herself by filing a separate W.P.M.P. No.
Respondent No.7 therein, i.e., the Appellant before us, had companytended that numberoffence, as alleged in the Writ Petition, has been companymitted by her.
The High Court, after companysidering the case of the parties, companycluded that the Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th Assembly Constituencies were number justified in number initiating appropriate proceedings under the statutory provisions and therefore has directed the Respondent Nos.
The Appellant had proposed to companytest as a candidate and filed her numberination forms in 4 Assembly Constituencies viz.
One Shri C. Kuppusamy the Respondent No.1 herein , Member of Parliament, had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation impleading the Chief Election Commissioner, Chief Electoral Officer and the Returning Officers of Bhuvanagiri, Padukottai, Andipatti and Dharmapuri Assembly Constituencies as Respondent Nos.
Krishnagiri, Andipatti, Bhuvanagiri and Padukottai on 16.04.2001, 18.04.2001, 23.04.2001 and 23.04.2001, respectively.
In the aforesaid Writ Petition, he sought for, inter alia, a writ or direction to the respondents therein to initiate appropriate action by launching prosecution against the Appellant in accordance with law for the offence alleged to have been companymitted by her under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short and to directly companytrol and monitor the same under their powers of the judicial superintendence.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.
It is this judgment and order of the High Court which is the subject matter of this appeal.
The Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer had jointly opposed the allegation of inaction on their part and had further stated that the Commissioner had companyveyed its desire that the matter be examined by the Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th Assembly Constituencies in the light of the clarification issued by them.
1 to 4 therein to initiate appropriate action against the Appellant in accordance with law within a particular time frame.
Strangely, Respondent No.1 had number impleaded the Appellant in the aforesaid Writ Petition.
However, she was disqualified to companytest the elections on the ground of her companyviction in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Respondent No.1 had submitted that the Appellant, by filing more than 2 numberination forms for candidature in elections, has acted in breach of Section 33 7 b of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 the Act for short and by making a false declaration at the time of filing of numberination forms before Returning Officers of Bhuvanagiri the 3rd and Pudukkottai the 4th Assembly Constituencies, is liable to be prosecuted under Section 177 of IPC.
Therein, with each numberination form, she had given a declaration that she had number been and would number be numberinated as a candidate at the said elections from more than two Assembly Constituencies.
1168 of 2007, which was allowed by the High Court and, accordingly, she was impleaded as Respondent No.7 in the writ petition.
It is essential to briefly outlay the facts that led to this appeal before us.
Leave granted.
The lis relates to the Legislative Assembly Elections held in the year 2001 for the State of Tamil Nadu.
12996 of 2002 with W.P.M.P. Nos.17487 of 2002 and 1168 of 2007 dated 13.06.2007.
1 to 6, respectively.
He had further submitted, that the representations made by him before the Chief Election Commissioner the Commissioner for short and the Chief Electoral Officer to initiate criminal action against the Appellant have number yielded any results and numberaction under the aforesaid statutory provisions was initiated against the Appellant.
