Home > Tamil Movies > Tamil Cinema News

By |
Vishal requests the Returning Officer to recall and accept his RK Nagar nomination

Actor Vishal has sent a letter to the Returning Officer requesting him to recall and accept his RK Nagar nomination that was improperly rejected on December 5.

"Respected Sir,

Sub: Rejection of my nomination for thebye election to be held in No.11 Dr.Radhalcrishnan Nagar constituency.

This is to bring to your notice that I had filed my nomination for the bye election in the RK Nagar Constituency No.11 at Chennai Tamil Nadu. I had submitted a duly filled in nomination form with all the requisite forms and documents and I have also remitted the requisite deposit of Rs.10,000/- My nomination was duly accepted and given serial no -72.

The scrutiny of nomination paper was scheduled to be held on 05.12.2017 at 11 a.m. Nearly about 145 persons have filed their nomination forms. My form was assigned Serial No.72. The Returning officer (hereinafter referred to as RO) commenced the scrutiny at about 11 a.m and the scrutiny of my nomination was taken at about 1.30 pm since there were objections from 2 persons on unsustainable and untenable grounds. Due to the commotion prevailing at that point of time in the scrutiny hall which lasted for more than an hour, the Returning Officer adjourned the scrutiny proceedings for lunch recess. The RO resumed the scrutiny of nominations at about 3.45pm, and informed me that the scrutiny of my nomination form will be taken up at the end of the list i.e. after the scrutiny of nomination form in Serial No.145. Since I had not had anything to eat since morning, I ventured out the scrutiny hall for the sake of having some snacks.

I am reliably informed that during the scrutiny of the nomination form in about Serial No.102, the objectors had produced two of my proposers and made them produce a letter that they had not proposed my candidature and have not signed my nomination forms as proposers. During my temporary absence, my representatives who were present in the hall objected to the same and wanted the issue to be taken up at the end of the Serial No.145. They further insisted that the RO should wait till the candidate i.e myself returned. Immediately, thereafter the RO went out of the scrutiny hall and spoke to some on his mobile phone.In spite of the reasonable request made by Representatives, the Returning Officer announced that my nomination was rejected due to the reason that two of the proposers who have signed their signature in my form have stated that they have not signed the same.

I state that as soon I came to know about the rejection of my nomination, I called and spoke to the persons who had signed the said proposal form over my mobile phone. The said persons informed me that they have been coerced and threatened with dire consequences and that their family members were kidnapped and only on account of the same they made a representation that they iltilVe not signed and proposed my nomination and further they were also offered huge sums of money to make such false statements before the RO. The entire conversation was 
recorded in the mobile phone on which I spoke to them.

Immediately thereafter, I appeared before the RO and played the recorded phone conversation. The conversation was duly heard by the RO and I was a.ed to send the voice message to the RO in Whatsapp, which I immediately did.

It is relevant to state here that for the purpose of taking a decision on my nomination form on the basis of the clarification and explanation offered by me, the Returning Officer once again went out of the scrutiny hall and spoke to someone on his mobile phone. After speaking on his mobile phone, the Returning Officer entered the scrutiny hall and started writing a detailed note. At the time of making note, I was present very close to the Returning officer and I was able to see what he was writing. The Returning Officer made a note to the effect that he has perused the signature in the nomination form and the letter of complaint given by the said two proposers and that he is fully satisfied that both the signatures are similar.

After this, satisfying himself the RO announced that my nomination is in order and that my nomination was accepted, in the presence of the other candidates in the hall. At that time, I was congratulated by the persons present in the Hall and I also thanked and shook hands with the RO. After exiting the building at around 8.10 p.m, I was approached by the persons of the print and electronic media and was asked about my nomination and I made a statement that my nomination form has been accepted by the RO.

Thereafter I returned home. At around 10.45 pm, I was shocked to learn through news channels that my nomination WEIS again rejected by the same RO by passing a detailed order. I was not given an opportunity to submit my explanation after the acceptance of my nomination and before the subsequent second rejection of my nomination by the RO. I really am not aware of what transpired during the period between 8.10pm to 10.45pm which warranted the RO to take such a decision without my knowledge.

I am advised to state that as per Section 36(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act `The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceeclirugs are Vaterrupted or obstruded by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control, Provided that in case 2 fan objection is raised by the returning officer or is made by any other person! the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned.'

From the
above it is clear that if there is any objection or disruption, the candidate must be given an opportunity of one day to rebut or clarify any objection.

The RO has passed the rejection order in complete contravention of the relevant laws and procedures. I am given to understand that the RO rejected my nomination only at the behest of certain persons belonging to the Ruling Government.

It is relevant to state here that the pensions of Section 36(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act had not been followed in as much as the RO permitting the complainants and entertaining the complaint/objections by the two proposers, namely Sumathy, and Deepan. Since one other proposer had already accompanied the candidate i.e. myself for the sautiery, the RO ought not to have permitted the other 1st persons to be present in the scrutiny hall itself. Scrutinising the nomination forms on the basis of the statements of such persons who are not even entitled to be present at the time of scrutiny and on the basis of their statement rejecting my nomination is perse illegal.

From the above, it would categorically
emerged that my nomination form has been rejected illegally and thereby my constitutional and statutory- rights to contest for the election have been violated. Further, the rights of the citizen to vote in my favour which has been held to be a constitutional/fundamental right by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court has also been violated. The same tantamount to subverting, thwarting and derailing the very process of democracy which is ingrained in our constitution.

The RO has acted arbitrarily in rejecting my nomination in contravention of the relevant laws and in not following the procedure established by law. Duty is cast upon the Election Commission and its officers to ensure free and fair election which is fundamental to democracy. By the illegal and improper rejection of my nomination by RO of Dr.Radhakrishnan Nagar Constituency No.11.

Hence I request you to be kind enough to bestow your consideration to the process of scrutiny resulting in the illegal/improper rejection of my nomination paper and recall the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the RO and pass such appropriate orders accepting my nomination and thereby enable me to contest in the bye election to Legislative Assembly as an Independent candidate in the election to be held on 21.12.2017 Dr.Radhakrishnan Nagar Constituency No.11 and thus safeguard and restore my constitutional and statutory rights.

In view of the emergent situation, I once again request you to pass orders accepting my nomination at the earliest

(Vishal Krishna)"

Tags : Vishal


Home > Tamil Movies > Tamil Cinema News

By |

Producer Gnanavel Raja, in an official press statement, has spoken about the progress brought about by TFPC and its president Vishal, questioning the need for the eight persons to make allegations against him.

He explained that under the leadership of Vishal, his Namma Aniyinar has completed about 70% of the promises made to the TFPC. They have brought the subsidies given by the Tamil Nadu Government for small budget Tamil films to the workers behind them, something that had not been done for nine years prior to Vishal's presidency.

Speaking of many other such achievements, he expressed disappointment at the allegations of some due to arbitrary reasons.

Vishal requests the Returning Officer to recall and accept his RK Nagar nomination

People looking for online information on Vishal will find this news story useful.