HC declares Raveendranath's victory as Theni MP null & void
Though the court has stayed the order for 30 days as per the request from the MP to file an appeal, the verdict has triggered a fresh debate over the victory of the influential AIADMK candidate. In his 147-page order, the judge pointed out the grounds for declaring the election null and void as per the Representation of People Act 1951 Section 100.
P Raveendranath Kumar
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday declared the 2019 election of expelled AIADMK member P Raveendranath Kumar — son of former Chief Minister O Panneerselvam — from the Theni Lok Sabha constituency as “null and void”. The verdict by Justice SS Sundar has come as a rude shocker for the lone AIADMK MP and another setback for the OPS camp.
Though the court has stayed the order for 30 days as per the request from the MP to file an appeal, the verdict has triggered a fresh debate over the victory of the influential AIADMK candidate. In his 147-page order, the judge pointed out the grounds for declaring the election null and void as per the Representation of People Act 1951 Section 100.
Petitioner P Milany from the Theni constituency moved the HC in 2019, challenging Raveendranath’s victory as “he deliberately suppressed his assets and liabilities in Form 26 of the election affidavit and freely distributed sweet boxes, liquor, and cash to the voters for votes”.
The petitioner also claimed that Saveetha Arunprasad, a close confidante of Raveendranath, distributed money to voters before the election with the consent of Raveendranath.
Additional Advocate General V Arun, who appeared for the petitioner, said Raveendranath suppressed his position as a shareholder and Director of Vani Fabrics Pvt Ltd and also suppressed the liability of Rs 10 crore borrowed by the Vijayanth Developers Pvt Ltd in which Raveendranath is one of the Directors and holding 33.33 per cent shares. The petitioner raised doubt that, as per company records, the transfer of shares is done by manipulation of records to cover up the suppression of assets. Raveendranath has not disclosed the consideration he received for the transfer of 15,000 shares, alleged the petitioner.
Raveendranath’s affidavit said the petitioner is trying to build castles in the air making farcical charges with no material facts or particulars. Senior counsel Sriram, who appeared for him, said there is no direct proof that Saveetha Arunprasad is an agent of Raveendranath or she was doing so with consent of his election agent.
He further argued that the suppression had not materially affected the result of the election as he won with a huge margin of 76,000 votes.
Raveendranath is expected to move the Supreme Court challenging the HC order.
