The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected an election petition filed last year against the victory of former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam from the Bodinayakannur Assembly constituency on the ground that he had allegedly suppressed the true assets and liabilities of his wife, while filing nominations.
Justice V. Bharathidasan held that there was absolutely no suppression or misrepresentation by Mr. Panneerselvam and that the allegations levelled against him by a voter, P. Milany, were baseless. Allowing an application to reject the plaint, the judge said there was no necessity to conduct trial on the election petition.
“This court is of a considered view that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action and fails to give rise to triable issues. It is only liable to be rejected,” the judge wrote after being convinced with the arguments advanced by senior counsel AR.L. Sundaresan, on behalf of the former Chief Minister.
The prime allegation levelled by the election petitioner was that Mr. Panneerselvam’s wife had stood as a guarantor for a loan of ₹27.5 crore availed by a private company, owned by their son, but had disclosed the liability amount as only ₹12 crore in an affidavit filed along with the nomination papers.
On careful consideration of the documents, the judge found that she had extended a bank guarantee only for ₹12 crore. He also found that the MLA had neither undervalued nor suppressed the real value of certain agricultural lands owned by his wife as alleged by the election petitioner.
The judge also rejected the argument that Mr. Panneerselvam ought not to have mentioned his profession as agriculturist in the affidavit when it was only his wife who owned agricultural lands and he did not own any farmland. The judge said, it was enough if the family owns agricultural properties.
“Merely because the first respondent did not have any separate agricultural income, it cannot be construed that he is not an agriculturist and, at any rate, it could not be considered as misrepresentation. It is also not the case of the election petitioner that the first respondent is having separate occupation and he is not an agriculturist,” the judge said.
