- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of Madras High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 4 of 1980 with costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-. The Election Petition was filed for declaring the election of the second respondent V. Arangarajan alias v. Rangarajan alias Perumal to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No. 157, Uppiliapuram Scheduled Tribes reserved Assembly Constituency in Thuraiyur taluk, Tiruchirappalli district, in the election held on 28-5-1980 as void and further declaring that appellant R. Palanimuthu has been duly elected from that constituency. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal on 17-12-1983 to the extent of setting aside the election of the second respondent for reasons to follow and directed the parties to bear the respective costs. Now we proceed to give our reasons.
(2.) The polling took place on 28-5-1980 and the result was announced after the counting was over on 1-6-1980. The second respondent belonging, to the AIADMK secured 43,263 votes while the appellant belonging to the Congress (1) party, his closest rival, secured 40,997 votes. The other candidates in the field, respondents 3 to 5 secured less than 1752 votes each and the second respondent was declared elected.
(3.) The constituency ha: been declared by the notification dated 26-2-1969 issued by the Election Commission of India under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 to be a Scheduled Tribes constituency. Consequently, only candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes as per the Constitution, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Order 1950 as amended in 1976 could contest for election from this constituency having regard to Article 173 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. 3-A. The nominations of all the twelve candidates who filed their nominations before the last date fixed for the purpose were accepted by the first respondent, Returning Officer as valid. Later, seven of these candidates withdrew leaving only the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 in the field.;