IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09 ..04..2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No. 8682 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 M.Balasundaram … Petitioner vs. 1. The Chief Election Officer and Secretary to Government, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Returning Officer, 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constitutency), Chennai. 3. The Election Commission of India, Represented by its Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvan Chadhan, Asoka Road, New Delhi – 1. … Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certioratified Mandamus calling for the records relating to ther proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.3.2011 made in Rc.No.Zone VII/Egmore/AC/1/2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the nomination papers of the petitioner to enable him to contest the election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No.16 Egmore SC Assembly Constitutency. For Petitioner :::: Mr.K.Rajasekaran For Respondents 1 & 3 :::: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent 2 :::: Mr.Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader, Assisted by Ms.M.Sneha, Government Advocate. O R D E R THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayer for quashing the order dated 29.03.2011 made in Rc.No.Zone VII/Egmore/AC/1/2011 whereby his nomination paper has been rejected by the second respondent-Returning Officer, 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constitutency), Chennai. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he submitted his nomination paper for the election to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constitutency) on 26.03.2011, but his nomination paper was rejected on the ground of non-submission of sworn affidavit to be filed by the petitioner on assets and liabilities on a stamp paper. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that no where in the directives or in the memo issued by the respondents, it was mentioned that an affidavit should be filed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-, which should be attested by the competent authorities. It is contended that since the rule does not provide for filing of affidavit on a stamp paper, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity for correcting the defects before rejecting his nomination paper. 4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he did not file along with his nomination paper an affidavit prescribed by the Election Commission vide its letter dated 27.02.2003 and another affidavit in Form No.26. After the nomination paper was filed by the petitioner, the second respondent namely, the Returning Officer vide letter dated 26.03.2011 informed the petitioner that the requisite affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities must be furnished and consequent upon non-filing of the affidavit, the order will follow. Inspite of the direction given to the petitioner he failed to submit the sworn affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities on a stamp paper, and consequently, his nomination paper was rejected. 5. It is well settled that a candidate, who is willing to contest the election, either of Parliament or Assembly, must disclose his assets and liabilities while submitting the nomination paper. The said disclosure of assets and liabilities must be by way of an affidavit duly sworn in by the candidate on a stamp paper of a value of Rs.20/-. If such affidavit is not filed disclosing the assets and liabilities, then the defects is substantial in nature, and therefore, the Returning Officer is bound to reject the candidate’s nomination paper. In the instant case also, on account of non-filing of the affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities, the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, in our https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ view, the rejection of nomination paper cannot be held to be formal in nature, which needs interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pv/- Copy to: 1. The Chief Election Officer and Secretary to Government, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Returning Officer, 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constitutency), Chennai. 3. The Election Commission of India, Represented by its Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvan Chadhan, Asoka Road, New Delhi – 1. 1 cc To Mr.K.Rajasekaran, Advocate, SR.25379 W.P.No.8682 of 2011 gv(co) pmk.9.4.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/