By Shashwat Singh
Chennai (Tamil Nadu) [India], September 18 : The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a plea filed by TVK MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi seeking rejection of DMK candidate KR Periyakaruppan’s election petition challenging his (Seenivasa’s) victory with a margin of one vote in the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan reserved the order after hearing Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for Sethupathi, who led arguments on the application.
Sethupathi had defeated Periyakaruppan by just one vote in the election. He secured 83,375 votes against Periyakaruppan’s 83,374 votes.
Sethupathi has sought rejection of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that it does not disclose a cause of action and fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act.
The application also states that the election petition does not contain the concise statement of material facts required to sustain an election challenge and does not plead grounds under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act to declare the election void.
DMK’s Periyakaruppan, in his counter (response) to Sethupathi’s rejection application, has opposed the plea and maintained that the election petition discloses a complete cause of action.
The DMK candidate has raised several allegations concerning the counting of postal ballots and EVM votes.
According to his counter, 2,276 postal ballots were polled, while 2,275 were counted. Of these, 306 were rejected, and 1,969 were treated as valid.
Periyakaruppan has also alleged an 18-vote discrepancy between the round-wise EVM figures and the figures reflected in Form 20 and the Election Commission records.
A key allegation relates to a postal ballot allegedly belonging to No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly constituency being sent to the Returning Officer of No. 50 Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
Periyakaruppan has alleged that the ballot was found to have been cast in his favour but was wrongly rejected after reaching the Returning Officer of the other constituency.
He has also alleged that the required re-verification of rejected postal ballots was not properly carried out and has raised issues concerning the verification of Form 13A.
The election petition further raises allegations concerning EVM configuration and alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions and Election Commission instructions.
Periyakaruppan has argued that these allegations assume significance because Sethupathi’s victory margin was only one vote.
His counter states that the alleged misdirected postal ballot, the 18-vote EVM discrepancy, the rejection of postal ballots and the alleged deficiencies in re-verification are matters capable of materially affecting the election result.
The DMK side has further contended that these issues involve disputed questions of fact and therefore cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application seeking rejection of the election petition.
Sethupathi, in his rejoinder (reply) to Periyakaruppan’s counter (response), has maintained that the election petition does not disclose a sustainable cause of action even if its allegations are taken as true for deciding the rejection application.
The TVK side has argued that the election petition does not plead the material facts necessary to establish that the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result.
Sethupati’s rejoinder also disputes the factual foundation of the allegations relating to postal ballots, counting discrepancies and re-verification, and contends that the election petition fails to set out a coherent cause of action.
Sethupathi has therefore sought dismissal of the election petition. 
Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, assisted by Advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal (Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers), Yash S. Vijay and T Mahendhran represented TVK’s Seenivasa Sethupathi. 
The High Court has now reserved its order on Sethupathi’s application.