- (1.) This appeal, under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, calls in question final judgment and order made by the High Court of Madras in election petition no. 1 of 1996 on 29/12/1999.
(2.) Though, fresh elections have since been held to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and to an extent this appeal has been rendered in-fructuous, 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.
(3.) The appellant was a candidate from 220 Charenmahadevi assembly constituency of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly at the elections held in 1996. He had represented that constituency, according to averments made in the election petition, for four consecutive terms between 1977 and 1991. In the elections held on 27/04/1996 he lost to respondent no. 1. He filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate - respondent no. 1, mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the respondent was a government contractor who had a subsisting contract with panchayat union and the state government and was therefore, disqualified to be chosen as a member of the assembly under section 9-A of the representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act") ; and secondly, the returned candidate had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the limits prescribed under the Act and had, thus, committed a corrupt practice under section 123 (6) of the Act. The respondent resisted the election petition and denied all the allegations. By the impugned judgment and order the election petition was dismissed, after evidence had been led by the parties.;