Madras High Court
OA/1030/2026 of The Indian Chief Election Officer Vs K.R.M. Radhakrishnan on 25 September 2026
OA No. 1030 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
OA No. 1030 of 2026
IN
ELP NO. 4 OF 2026
1. The Indian Chief Election Officer
The Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Additional Chief Election Officer Public (Elections) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
3. The Returning Officer
215-Thiruchendur Assembly Constituency,
Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District,
Pincode 628 215
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. K.R.M. Radhakrishnan
S/o.K.R.Murugan, No.3, Vinayagarkoil Street, Arumuganeri Village, Arumuganeri Taluk, Thoothukudi District Pincode 628 202
2. Anith Radhakrishnan
S/o.V.Ramamurthy, No.21, Vadakkutheru,
Thandupattu Village, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, Pincode 628 208
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Original Application is filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the OS Rules and Rule 3 of the Madras High Court election Petition Rules, 1967
read with Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC, To Struck off the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in the Election Petition No.4 of 2026.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:12:35 pm )
OA No. 1030 of 2026
For Applicant(s):
Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Alexis Sudhakar for R1
Mr.UM.Ravichandran for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Alexis Sudhakar for R1 & Mr.UM.Ravichandran for R2.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, states that the respondents 1 to 3 are not necessary parties to the Election Petition and they need not be arrayed as respondents in the Election Petition. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of India and Others, reported in (1991) Supp (2) SCC 624 and Jyoti Basu and others Vs. Debi Ghosal and others, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 691. He would therefore seeks for striking off the respondents 1 to 3 from the Election Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, would fairly state that the respondents are not necessary parties in the Election Petition and therefore, he has no objection for allowing O.A. No.1030 of 2026.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:12:35 pm )
OA No. 1030 of 2026
4. I have also independently perused the affidavit filed in support of this petition and I am satisfied with the reasons assigned therein. Accordingly, this Original Application is ordered. 25-09-2026 RKP
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:12:35 pm )
OA No. 1030 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP OA No. 1030 of 2026 IN ELP NO. 4 OF 2026 (1/2) 25-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 02:12:35 pm )