ORDER : R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. This is a classic case where due to official apathy and complete negligence on the part of the Authorities, who are put in charge of the process of election to Village Panchayats, a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of furnishing false information in the affidavit filed by him under Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules , has not only completed his tenure as a member of the Village Panchayat, but also escaped consequence of any criminal action. 2 . The fifth respondent herein contested in the elections held in the year 2019 for a Membership of the District Ward , he was declared the successful candidate having secured the most number of votes. A complaint was made by the petitioner herein on 29.10.2022 alleging that the fifth respondent has not made full and correct disclosure of the properties that were owned by him at the time of the election which according to the petitioner was in violation of the Rules, requiring action to be taken under Rule 26 (2A) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules , 1995. The State Election Commission on its part forwarded the said complaint to the District Collector/ District Election Officer, Thiruvarur on 04.11.2022. He in turn forwarded it to the Returning Officer viz. the Project Director, Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihood Mission, under cover of his letter dated 02.12.2022. 3. The said Officer, as required under Rule 26 (2A)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules , 1995, conducted a preliminary enquiry and recorded a prima facie finding that the fifth respondent was in fact guilty of not making a full and correct disclosure of his assets in the affidavit filed by him. After recording such finding and after having informed the District Collector of such finding on 02.03.2023, the Project Director waited for almost 7 months to write to the District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur, requiring him to take appropriate criminal action against the fifth respondent under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code . 4. The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch upon receipt of the information addressed the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, seeking permission to file a private complaint under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code . 4. The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch upon receipt of the information addressed the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, seeking permission to file a private complaint under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code . That was returned by the Judicial Magistrate on the same day informing the Superintendent of Police that this being a case where Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , would stand attracted a complaint cannot be lodged by the Police Officials. 5. Upon return by the Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police wrote to the Project Director, Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihood Mission / Returning Officer informing him that the procedure under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , should be followed. Thereafter, after about 8 months the District Collector, Thiruvarur, had sought for the opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecutions, Nagapattinam, vide his letter dated 02.08.2024, regarding the procedure to be followed in initiating the Criminal complaint. The Assistant Director of Prosecution, Nagapattinam on 23.08.2024 wrote to the District Collector informing him that a private complaint has to be lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by the Returning Officer. In the interregnum, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition before the Court. 6 . A counter affidavit was filed by the District Collector, Thiruvarur on 27.08.2024 admitting the fact that there was a finding to the effect that the fifth respondent is guilty of suppression and the need for taking appropriate action. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit of the District Collector dated 27.08.2024 reads as follows: “12. Regarding the averments in ground 'a' to 'i' of the affidavit of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner has raised the one and same contentions repeatedly. It is submitted that it is not disputed that the 5th respondent has suppressed the property purchased by the 5th respondent in his name in RS.No. 12/12 12/9B measuring 0.15.0 are in Perumpannaiyur village, KodavasalTaluk which was purchased on 29.03.2005 as is evident from the details available in the official website of Registration department vide registered document No. 200/2005. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur has informed that FIR could not be registered in view of the rule position extracted in para 9 above. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur has informed that FIR could not be registered in view of the rule position extracted in para 9 above. It is submitted that amended rule 26(2A) (h) of TamilNadu Panchayat Election Rules 2005 reads as follows:- "(h) in view of the penal provisions contained in section 177 of the Indian Penal code 1860 in case of furnishing of false information by any candidate, if any confirmed at a later date, the Returning Officer concerned may initiate criminal action against that candidate after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and by following the procedure contemplated in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ." It is further submitted that as already stated above, enquiry as contemplated under the Rules (Rule 26(2A)(h)) has been done and after finding that the 5th Respondent has indeed given false information to the Returning Officer while submitting his nomination, necessary action was taken by lodging complaint for criminal prosecution, with the Superintendent of police, Thiruvarur, However, the same was returned citing that the Police Official are unable to lodge complaint in view of the bar under sec 195 Cr. Pc. Thereafter legal opinion was sought from the Assistant Director of Prosecution. It is submitted that immediate steps will be taken for lodging of Private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate directly under section 177 Cr.Pc. and necessary follow up action will be done.” 7. When the matter was listed before us on 13.02.2025, we had required the District Collector as well as the Election Commissioner to file affidavit explaining their inaction and the remedial measures that could be taken for having abutted and aided the fifth respondent. Consequent upon our direction, the affidavits in response have been filed by the State Election Commissioner as well as the District Collector, Thiruvarur. The State Election Commissioner in her affidavit has explained the steps that were taken by their Office and has also expressed her helplessness as the Election Commission is not empowered to conduct enquiries after the declaration of the results of the Election. 8. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission/first respondent herein would fairly agree that the State Election Commission is only a Post Office, after the completion of the elections and it has no authority to act on any complaint. 8. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission/first respondent herein would fairly agree that the State Election Commission is only a Post Office, after the completion of the elections and it has no authority to act on any complaint. The position of law is also in accordance with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. So the Election Commission has done whatever it could do by forwarding the complaint to the Authorities concerned. But it is the Authorities who have failed in their duty to launch appropriate prosecution. 9. At this juncture, we must observe that it is sought to be contended that even if the fifth respondent is punished by the Criminal Court, in view of the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, he would not incur a disqualification as the disqualification could be only when the punishment is for a period over two years for offences other than which are listed out in Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The offence under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code is not an offence that is listed out under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Therefore, Section 38(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, would stand attracted. 10. No doubt, a Member, who has filed a false affidavit, will not incur a disqualification under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, but that by itself will not justify the inaction on the part of the Authorities concerned. The enactment imposes a duty on a contestant to make a truthful disclosure of certain matters by way of an affidavit while filing his nomination. If the contestant fails to furnish proper information or suppresses information, the machinery to address such lapses is provided under the Rules and Rule 26(2A)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules 2005, provides that a prosecution should be launched against a candidate if it is found that such candidate has furnished false information. 11. The Provision viz. Rule 26 (2A) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules , 2005, does not make a difference between a candidate, who is subsequently elected or a candidate who looses the election. 11. The Provision viz. Rule 26 (2A) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules , 2005, does not make a difference between a candidate, who is subsequently elected or a candidate who looses the election. Even the candidate who looses the election is liable for prosecution under Section 26(2A)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules 2005, if he/she is found to have given false information or is found to be guilty of suppressing information. 12. Unfortunately, in the case on hand by resorting to the usual dilatory tactics both the District Collector, Thiruvarur and the Project Director, who was the Returning Officer have successfully defeated the provisions of the enactment. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , prosecution for an offence the punishment for which is not more than a year should be launched within one year of deduction of the offence. Admittedly, the offence was deducted on 02.03.2023 when the Returning Officer made a prima facie finding that the fifth respondent is guilty of suppression of facts. But the private complaint came to be lodged after almost two years only on 21.02.2025. Of course Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of a complaint if the Court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained and it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 13. As past experience has demonstrated none of these cases, particularly when they relate to politicians, do not reach a logical end, when we say politicians, we include politicians from all the political parties across the spectrum de hors the fact as to whether they are in power or not. The Officials have been trained in such a way that they are only to serve the politicians and not the people of this Country. This we say because we find that the fifth respondent actually belongs to the opposition party and despite the fact that he belongs to the primary opposition party he has been favoured by the Officials concerned. 14. We can only pray to God almighty to do something to change the attitude of the Officials of the State as we find no amount of expression of dissatisfaction or even punishment succeeds in correcting them. 15. 14. We can only pray to God almighty to do something to change the attitude of the Officials of the State as we find no amount of expression of dissatisfaction or even punishment succeeds in correcting them. 15. We dispose of the Writ Petition with heavy heart and fond hopes that the Authorities will wake up to the responsibilities at least in the very late future, though we cannot expect them to change in the very near future. The Chief Secretary will take appropriate disciplinary action against the District Collector, Thiruvarur as well as the Project Director who were in-charge during the relevant period i.e. between 02.03.2023 and 23-08-2024 the date on which the Assistant Director of Prosecutions, Nagapattinam, gave his opinion, for dereliction of duty. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.