O.PANNEERSELVAM vs T.KANNAN

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:15.10.2026 Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
O.A. No.1022 of 2026
in ELP. No.5 of 2026
O.Panneerselvam
S/o.Ottarkarathevar,
No.145/70, South Agraharam,
Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601
Theni District.
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. T.Kannan
S/o.K.Thayumanavan,
No.6-3-2, Pajaimada Street,
Genguvarpatty - 625 203,
Theni District.
2. The Returning Officer Cum District Supply
And Consumer Protection Officer
Theni, No.200,
Bodinayakkanur Assembly Constituency,
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
3. S.Kalaiyarasu
S/o.Srinivasagam,
Moovendar Illam,
414, Natarajan Salai,
Ponnappa Nadar Nagar,
Nagercoil - 629 004.
Kanyakumar District.
4. V.T.Narayansamy
S/o.P.N.V.Thiruvengadam,
32/W4, Panayat Office Street,
Govindhanagaram - 625 517.
Theni District.
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
5. N.Padmanabhan
S/o.Narayanasamy,
Thirunagar,
Sivagiripatty - 624 601.
Palani, Dindigul District.
6. S.Prakash
S/o.R.Selvam,
48-A, 6th Street, Forest Road,
Theni - 625 531.
Theni District.
7. M.Raja
S/o.Mani, 2-1-101/2-1-62,
Maravar Street, Sedapatty,
Vadugapatty - 625 603.
Theni District.
8. S.Pandikumar
S/o.Ponnammal Subramaniyan,
924W, Vinobaji Nagar,
2nd Street, Near Vithaigal Education Centre,
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
9. G.Karuppiah
S/o.Gopal, Sowdamman Kovil Street,
Silamalai - 625 528.
Theni District.
10.R.Gowtham
S/o.Rajendran,
11-1-19, Main Road,
Upparpatty, Veerapandi - 625 534.
Theni District.
11.S.Chandrasekaran
S/o.R.Subramaniyapillai,
10, Vaniyar Street, Chinnakadai Veethi,
Vadugapatty - 625 603.
Theni District.
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
12.V.Saravanakumar
S/o.Vellusamy, 196,
West Street,
Govindhanagaram - 625 517.
Theni District.
13.V.Naganathini
W/o.S.Prakash,
48-A, 6th Street, Forest Road,
Theni - 625 531.
Theni District.
14.P.Selvamurugan
S/o.Pandiyarajan,
40/40, TVKK Nagar-2,
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
15.K.Balasubramani
S/o.Rengasamy,
1491, Veerapandi Road,
Thappukundu,
Thandichery - 625 534.
Theni District.
16.K.Velraj
S/o.Kaliappan, 290,
Ramakrishnapuram,
Pottipuram, Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
..Respondent(s)
ELP. No.5 of 2026
T.Kannan
S/o.K.Thayumanavan,
No.6-3-2, Pajaimada Street,
Genguvarpatty - 625 203,
Theni District.
..Petitioner(s)
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
Vs
1. The Returning Officer Cum District Supply
And Consumer Protection Officer
Theni, No.200,
Bodinayakkanur Assembly Constituency,
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
2. O.Panneerselvam
S/o.Ottarkarathevar,
No.145/70, South Agraharam,
Thenkarai, Periyakulam - 625 601
Theni District.
3. S.Kalaiyarasu
S/o.Srinivasagam,
Moovendar Illam,
414, Natarajan Salai,
Ponnappa Nadar Nagar,
Nagercoil - 629 004.
Kanyakumar District.
4. V.T.Narayansamy
S/o.P.N.V.Thiruvengadam,
32/W4, Panayat Office Street,
Govindhanagaram - 625 517.
Theni District.
5. N.Padmanabhan
S/o.Narayanasamy,
Thirunagar,
Sivagiripatty - 624 601.
Palani, Dindigul District.
6. S.Prakash
S/o.R.Selvam,
48-A, 6th Street, Forest Road,
Theni - 625 531.
Theni District.
7. M.Raja
S/o.Mani, 2-1-101/2-1-62,
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
Maravar Street, Sedapatty,
Vadugapatty - 625 603.
Theni District.
8. S.Pandikumar
S/o.Ponnammal Subramaniyan,
924W, Vinobaji Nagar,
2nd Street, Near Vithaigal Education Centre,
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
9.G.Karuppiah
S/o.Gopal, Sowdamman Kovil Street,
Silamalai - 625 528.
Theni District.
10. R.Gowtham
S/o.Rajendran,
11-1-19, Main Road,
Upparpatty, Veerapandi - 625 534.
Theni District.
11. S.Chandrasekaran
S/o.R.Subramaniyapillai,
10, Vaniyar Street, Chinnakadai Veethi,
Vadugapatty - 625 603.
Theni District.
12. V.Saravanakumar
S/o.Vellusamy, 196,
West Street,
Govindhanagaram - 625 517.
Theni District.
13. V.Naganathini
W/o.S.Prakash,
48-A, 6th Street, Forest Road,
Theni - 625 531.
Theni District.
14. P.Selvamurugan
S/o.Pandiyarajan,
40/40, TVKK Nagar-2,
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
15. K.Balasubramani
S/o.Rengasamy,
1491, Veerapandi Road,
Thappukundu,
Thandichery - 625 534.
Theni District.
16. K.Velraj
S/o.Kaliappan, 290,
Ramakrishnapuram,
Pottipuram, Bodinayakkanur - 625 513.
Theni District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER in O.A. No.1022 of 2026: This Original Application is filed under
Rules 3 and 12 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967 read
with Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court
and Order VII rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reject
the Election Petition No.6 of 2026 .
PRAYER in ELP No.5 of 2026: This Election Petition is filed under Sections
80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 100(1)(c) of the Representations of the People Act, 1951
challenging the Election of the 2nd respondent from Bodinayakkanur Assembly
nd
Constituency, (a) The election of the returned candidate, the 2 respondent,
from No.200 Bodinayakkanur Assembly be declared void and set aside under
Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declare a
fresh election and (b) Allow the cost of this petition to the petitioner.
For Applicant(s): Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior Counsel for
Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthikeyan
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
ORDER
This Original Application has been taken out by the successful returned
nd
candidate, the 2 respondent in the Election Petition, seeking to reject the
Election Petition, invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
2. I have heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.Agilesh
nd
Kumar, appearing for the applicant/ 2 respondent and Mr.K.Kathiresan,
appearing for the respondent/election petitioner.
3. The election petition has been filed by the respondent herein,
contending that his nomination has been improperly rejected by the Returning
Officer and therefore, the election petitioner is entitled to succeed, in view of
the mandate of Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Submissions of Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel, are summarised as
hereunder:
According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is absolutely no cause of
action for the relief sought for in the election petition and there is absolutely no
pleading with regard to grounds 7 to 13, which have been set out in the election
petition. He would further state that there is no proof as well, leave alone
absence of pleading, warranting consideration of the election petition on merits.
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
Taking me to the Form-26 itself, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N.R.Elango states
that the nomination of the election petitioner has been refused on the ground
that the petitioner was receiving monthly income from the Government and he
himself had admitted to be an employee of the State Government, getting salary
from the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that
the Returning Officer has rightly found that the election petitioner is holding an
office of profit under the State Government and rejected his nomination. He
would also take me through the admitted pleadings of the election petitioner to
contend that the rejection was for a valid reason and not unfounded, as
contended by the election petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel would further
state that the mere use of adjectives like mechanical, arbitrary, illegal and non-
speaking without being able to substantiate any of the same would not suffice to
maintain the election petition.
4. On facts, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner was
initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Local Library Authority at
Virudhunagar and was subsequently promoted as the Superintendent in the
Office of District Library, at Theni. However, it is the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel that the election petition does not contain material facts with
regard to the source of the petitioner’s appointment which would clearly
constitute an office of profit under the Government, within the meaning of
Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel would
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
further state that the explanation offered by the election petitioner, that the
Local Library Authority is a separate statutory body, constituted under the
Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948 and therefore, the employees of the
Local Library Authority cannot be treated as Government servants and
consequently, not as holders of “office of profit” under the Government, is
factually as well as legally, unsustainable. In this regard, he has taken me
through the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948 itself and referring to
Section 9-A, he would vehemently contend that in view of the express language
employed in Section 9-A of the Act, the petitioner cannot contend that he is not
a Government Servant. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the following
3 decisions:
(i) Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1986 SCC OnLine SC
394;
(ii) Kimneo Haokip Hangshing vs. Kenn Raikhan, reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2548; and
(iii) Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 509
5. The learned senior counsel, Mr.N.R.Elango therefore contends that
there is no necessity for the parties to go for trial as there is complete absence of
cause of action and there is nothing in the election petition, even pleading on
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
necessary grounds, leave alone the same requiring proof, for setting aside the
assembly election, in which the applicant has been successfully elected.
6. Submissions of Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned counsel for the respondent/
election petitioner are briefly summarised hereunder:
Per contra, Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned counsel for the respondent/ election
petitioner, contends that the reason for the rejection of the election petitioner’s
nomination is that he holds office of profit and also citing Articles 102(1) and
191(1) of the Constitution of India. With regard to Article 102(1), learned
counsel for the respondent, Mr.K.Kathiresan, states that this Article can be
applied only to Members of Parliament and not to members of the State
Legislature Assembly. He would therefore, at the outset, state that the very
reference to Article 102(1) is wholly misplaced and consequently inapplicable.
As regards Article 191(1), taking me through the said Article, it is the
contention of the learned counsel for election petitioner that the said Article can
be invoked only when a person is sworn in and therefore, unless the parties are
referred to trial, the contention and objections of the respondent/election
petitioner cannot be effectively tested. In short, it is his submission that
rejection under Article 191(1) was in fact premature. The learned counsel would
also invite my attention to Article 173, which prescribes the qualifications for a
candidate standing for an assembly election. He would further contend that the
respondent/ election petitioner qualifies and satisfies all the requisites and
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
conditions enumerated in Article 173 and therefore, there was absolutely no
justification on the part of the returning officer to return the nomination.
7. As regards “office of profit”, he would contend that the enactment is of
the year 1948 and Section 9-A will have to be read along with Section 9-B and
Sections 12 and 13. Pointing out to the above Sections, the learned counsel
contends that though under Section 9-A, employees under the Local Library
Authority are treated as Government servants, their salary is not paid by the
Government, but from and out of a separate fund and income, and the said
income for the said fund is also taken care of by imposition of cess under
Section 12(2)(c) of the Act, in the form of surcharge on property taxes. It is
therefore, his submission that the salary paid to the election petitioner is only
out of a public fund and cannot be treated as payment of salary by the
Government. He would therefore state that there is no bar for the election
petitioner to have participated and stood in the elections. He also contended that
before passing the impugned order of rejection, there was no proper scrutiny or
enquiry conducted by the election officer. He would therefore state that the
application seeking rejection under Order VII Rule 11, cannot be entertained
and has to be dismissed, requiring an elaborate trial in the election petition and
to afford an opportunity to the election petitioner to establish his prayer to set
aside the election, invoking Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1950.
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
nd
Senior Counsel for the applicant/2 respondent and the counsel for the
respondent/ election petitioner.
9. It is not in dispute that the nomination of the election petitioner has
been rejected citing 2 Articles namely, Articles 102(1) and 191(1). As regards
Article 102(1), I find force in the submission of the counsel for respondent. This
Article specifically deals with disqualification of a person for being chosen as
and for being a member of either house of the Parliament. There is no
corresponding Article in the Constitution of India which pertains to the State
Legislative Assemblies. In fact, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel, fairly
conceded to this position, though he contended that even otherwise, the
rejection on the ground of holding an office of profit, invocation of Article
191(1) is proper, and therefore no purpose would be served by keeping the
election petition on file.
10. Article 191(1), admittedly applies to the case on hand since the
Article relates to disqualification for membership to the Legislative Assembly
or Legislative Council of a State. Article 191(1)(a) disqualifies a person for
being chosen as and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly, if he
holds any profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
specified in the first schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of
the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Admittedly in the present case, it is
not the case of both parties that in so far as State of Tamil Nadu, there is any
exemption granted by declaring any office being held to fall within the purview
of office of profit, thereby disqualifying the holder. I am now concerned with
whether the petitioner holds an office of profit under the Government and
consequently was disentitled to contest in the assembly elections.
11. In this context, the most relevant provision would be Section 9-A of
the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948. Under Section 9-A, all persons
employed in the Local Library Authorities, notwithstanding anything contained
st
in any other law in force on, and from 1 April 1982, are treated as wholetime
Government Servants. The election petitioner was appointed subsequent to this
relevant date which factum is not disputed by the election petitioner. Therefore,
I do not see any difficulty in straight away finding that the election petitioner,
being an employee of the Local Library Authority is a whole time Government
servant. Merely because there is an internal arrangement between the
Government and the Local Library Authority relating to reimbursement of
salaries and allowances paid by the Government, the express conferment of
status of a Government servant on a person employed in the Local Library
Authority, does not in any manner stand diluted.
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
12. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent,
that the application is premature and Article 191(1) can be applied only when
the person is sworn in and not earlier, I am unable to countenance the argument
for the simple reason that Article 191 disqualifies a person who holds an office
of profit under the State Government from even being chosen as, leave alone
being a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, if the petitioner is not
being capable of being chosen in the first place to be elected to the Legislative
Assembly, then I do not see why the parties should be forced to a prolonged and
unnecessary trial. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondent/ election petitioner that in view of Sections
9-B, 12 and 13 and separate fund being created, the petitioner cannot be treated
as Government servant holding an office of profit.
13. Coming to the decisions that are relied on by Mr. N.R.Elango, learned
Senior Counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain’s case (referred
herein supra), held that when there is no cause of action set out and there is
clear absence of material particulars, and the pleadings also do not disclose a
cause of action, then there would be nothing for the respondent to answer and
following the doctrine laid down in Nihal Singh vs. Rao Birendra Singh and
Another, reported in (1970) 3 SCC 239, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the election petition can be dismissed in exercise of powers under Order VII
Rule 11, CPC. In Kimeo Haokip Hangshing’s case, (reported herein supra) the
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in an election petition, pleadings have to be
precise, specific and unambiguous and if the allegations in the election petition
do not set out grounds as contemplated under Section 100 and do not conform
to the requirement of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act, then the election petition is
liable to rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A similar view was taken in
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya’s case (referred herein supra).
14. Applying the ratios laid down in the above decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, to the facts of the present case as well, I do not find anything
irregular or improper on the part of the returning officer in returning the
nomination of the respondent/ election petitioner, under Article 191(1) of the
Constitution of India. In such circumstances, having found that there is no
useful purpose being served by directing the parties to lead evidence, as the
writing is already on the wall and in view of the findings that the petitioner
holds an office of profit, which factum cannot be disputed by him in the light of
Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act, 1948, which is clearly
applicable to the petitioner, who was appointed only in the year 1996, I am
inclined to invoke Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition, holding
that the election petition is without a cause of action and there is no necessity
for conducting a trial to decide whether the rejection of the election petitioner’s
nomination was proper or improper.
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
15. In light of the above, OA No. 1022 of 2026 is allowed and
consequently, Election Petition No. 5 of 2026 stands rejected. No costs.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
RKP
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )

2026:MHC:4380
O.A. NO.1022 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI J.
RKP
Pre-delivery order in
O.A. No.1022 of 2026
in ELP. No.5 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:13 pm )