The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the Returning Officer's order refusing to reject a candidate's nomination. The court held that improper acceptance due to false information is a matter for election tribunals, not writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to file an election dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.10.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.11504 of 2011
O.L.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, cum District Election Officer, Sivagangai District,Sivagangai.
2.The Block Development Officer cum Assistant Election Officer, Sakkottai Panchayat Union, Sakkottai,Sivagangai District.
3.P.L.Gandhi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the rejecting order of the 2nd respondent, dated 30.09.2011 and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's objection representation dated 30.09.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Boomirajan For Respondents1&2: Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader.
O R D E R
The writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Returning Officer refusing to reject the nomination of the third respondent for election to the post of Ward Member in Kothamangalam Village Panchayat.
2.Heard Mr.R.Boomirajan, learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalendhi learned Special Government Pleader takes
2
notice for the respondents.
3.The improper acceptance of nomination of a candidate is a matter which is covered by Section 259(1)(d)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. I have held in Krishnamoorthy Vs.Sivakumar and others reported in 2009(3) CTC 446 that furnishing of a false information is a matter which could be considered by the Election Tribunal in an election dispute. Therefore, the proper remedy open to the petitioner is only to raise election dispute. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise election dispute, if the third respondent ever succeeds. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Records)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The District Collector, cum District Election Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Block Development Officer cum Assistant Election Officer, Sakkottai Panchayat Union, Sakkottai, Sivagangai District.
Writ Petition(MD)No.11504 of 2011 10.10.2011
sms
SMA/10.11.2011/3C/2P
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Returning Officer's order refusing to reject a nomination based on Section 259(1)(d)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnamoorthy Vs. SivakumarReferred¶19
Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others, 2009(3) CTC 446
2 provisions across 2 enactments
O.L. Venkatachalam
District Collector, cum District Election Officer, Sivagangai District
Block Development Officer cum Assistant Election Officer, Sakkottai Panchayat Union
P.L. Gandhi
V. Ramasubramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
