A LAZAR Vs. M K AZHAGIRI
LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-341
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 29,2011

A. LAZAR Appellant
VERSUS
M.K. AZHAGIRI AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) While Application Nos. 188 of 2011 and 2639 of 2011 have been filed by the election Petitioner, praying to permit him to correct the description of the names of the 11th Respondent as Veeradurai instead of Veerapandi and of the 7th Respondent as Thangapandi instead of Thangapandian respectively in short and long cause title of the Election Petition and the pending applications, the Application Nos. 2502 of 2011 and 3019 of 2011 have been filed by the returned candidate, praying to dismiss the Application Nos. 188 of 2011 and 2639 of 2011 respectively.
(2.) Facts in Application No. 188 of 2011: Applicant/election Petitioner is substituted in the place of deceased Petitioner in the election petition P. Mohan, by an order of this Court dated 06.09.2010 passed in O. A. No. 1358 of 2009. The amendment has been carried out. He has also taken steps to serve the amended copy of the petition to the Respondents. As far as the name of the 11th Respondent in the election petition is concerned, it is mentioned as "S. Veerapandi" instead of "S. Veeradurai". Notice in the main Election Petition No. 2 of 2009 has been served on the 11th Respondent at the address at No. J-11-1, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony, 1st Cross Street, K. K. Nagar, Madurai. The 11th Respondent has not entered appearance in O. A. No. 1358 of 2009 and also he has not raised any plea. However, some of the Respondents have raised a plea that the name of the 11th Respondent has been wrongly described. Pursuant to the ordering of O. A. No. 1358 of 2009, applicant has come on record as the person substituted in the place of deceased election Petitioner. Hence, he is taking steps to correct the name of Veerapandi as Veeradurai, by filing Application No. 188 of 2011.
(3.) First Respondent/returned candidate has filed a counter, stating as follows: 3.1. The application to amend the Election Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in limine, as the same is neither sustainable in law nor on merits. The petition for amendment of the Election Petition is not permissible and is therefore not maintainable. The defect in the Election Petition as filed by the original Petitioner cannot be rectified by the applicant herein. The applicant is nonchalant in his approach in correcting the error made in the Election Petition and is indeed oblivious of the flippant allegations levelled against the first Respondent. 3.2. Having got substituted in the case six months ago after the demise of Mr. Mohan and knowing full well of the details of the mistake apparent on the fact of the record, taking steps at a snail's pace only questions and doubts his sincerity in pursuing with the allegations levelled against the first Respondent by the deceased contestant. The petition ought to have been framed impeccably by collecting exact details at the inception itself. The names compared are entirely two different names and had nothing to do with the name of the 11th Respondent. Comparison of the names of different Respondents will in no way justify the ignorance of the Petitioner. It is obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to know the names of the persons who had contested in the Parliament election when such allegation is made against a law abiding citizen like the first Respondent. 3.3. Neither the Petitioner nor the original Petitioner can plead ignorance of the name of the 11th Respondent as the same is widely published before the election and was part of the declaration by the Election Officer. Further, the correct name and exact address of the 11th Respondent was conspicuously displayed in over 1200 polling stations, which would not have escaped the attention of everyone. 3.4 The petition is indistinct and incoherent and lacks integrity and affidavit filed along with the petition is illogical and in all likelihood is false and frivolous and is irrefutably without any basis. Therefore, the substituted Petitioner, who seeks amendment at this belated stage to correct the description of the name of the 11th Respondent as Veeradurai instead of Veerapandi in short and long cause title of the Election Petition and in the pending applications is not at all maintainable. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.