Dismissed

A. Jeyaprakash Narayanasamy v. the Delimitation Commission of

Madras HC15 Apr 2015WP/19770/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging delimitation notifications regarding the inclusion of twelve villages in the Kovilpatti Assembly Constituency was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

A. Jeyaprakash Narayanasamy Vs the Delimitation Commission of — Election Law | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.04.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.19770 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009

¶6

A.Jeyaprakash Narayanasamy .. Petitioner

¶7

vs 1.The Delimitation Commission of India, rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Election Commission of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001. 3.The Chief Electoral Officer and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Elections-III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4.The State Election Commission, 100 Feet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the publication of the Notifications dated 05.4.2007 and 13.8.2007 and to quash the final notification dated 13.8.2007 in Ref.No.SROG-32/2007 recommending inclusion of twelve revenue villages viz., 1.Pitchaithalaivanpatty, 2.Appeneri, 3.Vadakkupattu, 4.Lakshmiammalpuram, 5.Nakkalamuthanpatti, 6.Pillaiyarnatham, 7.Iyyaneri, 8.Mukkutumalai, 9.Jameen Devarkulam, 10.Illayarasanenthal, 11.Chithirampatti, 12.Puliyankulam to the Sankarankovil Assembly Constituency from taking out of the Kovilpatti Assembly Constituency as shown in Table “A” and direct

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

the respondents to include the twelve revenue villages as 1.Pitchaithalaivanpatty, 2.Appeneri, 3.Vadakkupattu, 4.Lakshmiammalpuram, 5.Nakkalamuthanpatti, 6.Pillaiyarnatham, 7.Iyyaneri, 8.Mukkutumalai, 9.Jameen Devarkulam, 10.Illayarasanenthal, 11.Chithirampatti, 12.Puliyankulam to the Kovilpatti Assembly Constituency.

¶11

For Petitioner .. No appearance

¶12

For Respondents .. Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R. Associates for R1 to R3 No Appearance for R4 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) None appears for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (J ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sra To 1.The Secretary, Delimitation Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Secretary, Election Commission of India, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.

¶13

3.The Chief Electoral Officer and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Elections-III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

4.The State Election Commission, 100 Feet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026.

¶16

1 cc to M/s.G.R. Associates, Advocate, Sr. 20554

¶17

W.P.No.19770 of 2009

¶18

ALA (CO)
kk 24/4

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A. Jeyaprakash Narayanasamy v. the Delimitation Commission of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Jeyaprakash Narayanasamy v. the Delimitation Commission of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Vijayapal, Vs the District Collector

C.Veerappan, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Ka.So.Ka.Polytechnic Vs All India Council for

A. Gilbert, Vs Tamil Nadu Cricket Assn.

The District Collector, Vs Thiru.B.Babu

A.Thomas Alwa Edison, Vs the District Collector