Thoothukudi parliamentary constituency: Poll petition against Kanimozhi stays alive14th November 2019
The material fact does not mean that all the facts relating a person concerned or all his activities in various capacities.
Chennai: The Madras high court has permitted a voter from Thoothukudi Parliamentary Constituency to substitute his name as the petitioner in the election petition filed by the defeated BJP candidate Tamilisai Soundararajan. Following her appointment as the Governor of Telangana, she had withdrawn her election petition challenging the election of DMK MP Kanimozhi from the Thoothukudi Parliamentary Constituency during the election held on April 18.
Justice S.M.Subramaniam allowed the petition filed A. Muthuramalingam, which sought to order substitution of the applicant as the petitioner in the place of the original election petitioner Tamilisai Soundararajan. The judge said the applicant A.Muthuramalingam was able to establish that he was a voter/elector of the Constituency concerned, namely, Thoothukudi Parliamentary Constituency. “The applicant has established that he was voter/elector of the Thoothukudi Parliamentary Constituency and hence he was entitled to be substituted in the place of the original election petitioner, namely, Tamilisai Soundararajan,” the judge added.
The judge said the second consideration was that whether he has complied with the conditions or not.
This court, on receipt of the substitution petition, ordered for deposit of security and the counsel for the applicant made a submission that the security deposit had already been made and the order of this court had been complied with. The court was of the opinion that the entitlement of a voter/elector under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, cannot be denied if the substitution petitioner was able to establish that he was eligible and complied with the terms and conditions of the orders of the high court, the judge added.
The judge said as far as the allegation of suppression of material fact was concerned, which was raised by Kanimozhi, the court was of the opinion that it was not as if the applicant has suppressed material facts for the purpose of considering the substitution petition. The information regarding the membership of the applicant with the BJP or his position as a District President of the Advocates Wing of the BJP may not have any relevance or bearing in respect of the substitution petition, which was to be considered for the purpose of continuance of the election petition filed by the original election petitioner Tamilisai Soundararajan. The material fact does not mean that all the facts relating a person concerned or all his activities in various capacities.
As far as the present substitution petition was concerned, the capacity of the applicant as a District President of the Advocates Wing of the BJP or his position as a member of the BJP, may not be relevant for the purpose of considering the substitution petition filed with reference to section 110 (3) of the Representation of People Act, the judge added.