Dismissed

A. Murugan v. the Tamilnadu State Election

Madras HC29 Jan 2016WA(MD)/1134/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed Writ Appeals challenging the election of Bhuvaneswari as Mayor of Tirunelveli on grounds of a false affidavit regarding marital status. The Court held that election petition is the correct remedy in such cases, making writ jurisdiction inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals challenging the election of the fifth respondent as Mayor were dismissed, holding that an election petition is the correct remedy.

A. Murugan Vs the Tamilnadu State Election — Election Law | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.01.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.1134 & 1135 of 2015

¶7

A.Murugan .. Appellant/Petitioner in both Appeals.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Tamilnadu State Election Commission,

¶10

rep.by its Commissioner, No.208/2, Jawagarlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Secretary,

¶12

The Tamilnadu State Election Commission,

¶13

No.208/2, Jawagarlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶14

3.The District Collector/District Election Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶15

4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.

¶16

5.Bhuvaneswari Mayor, Corporation of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.

¶17

... Respondents/Respondents in both the Appeals

¶18

Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by this Court in WP Nos.4864 & 9597 of 2015.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 4864/ 2015 :

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the letter note dated 17.03.2015 in Na.Ka. No. 7/9689/2015 on the file of the third Respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take suitable action against the 5th respondent.

¶21

Prayer in WP(MD). 9597/ 2015 : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Quo-Warranto to the fifth

¶22

¶23

respondent Mrs. Bhuvaneswari as to in what capacity she is holding the office of Mayor Corporation of Tirunelveli.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah For RR – 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Govindan Spl.Govt.Pleader For R – 4 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar For R – 5 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶27

The appellant has challenged the election of the fifth respondent as the Mayor of the Corporation of Tirunelveli, on the sole ground that at the time of filing of the nomination she made a false declaration in an affidavit about her marital status.

¶28

2.Heard Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶29

3.Without getting into too many details it can be pointed out that according to the petitioner who is an elector of the town of Tirunelveli, the fifth respondent was actually married to one Krishnakumar and that even when the marriage was subsisting, she married another person by name Kanaga Rajeswaran. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that in the affidavit filed along with the nomination, the fifth respondent indicated the name of her husband to be Kanaga Rajeswaran.

¶30

4.Though in the main counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, the fifth respondent made only a formal denial stressing only upon the maintainability of the writ petition she has now filed an affidavit containing a categorical denial. Therefore, that is a matter which cannot be decided without any evidence. Hence, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that election petition alone was the correct remedy in such cases. Therefore, the Writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Connected MP(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2015 are closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

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

TO,

1.The Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawagarlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶40

2.The Secretary, The Tamilnadu State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawagarlal Nehru Salai, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

¶41

3.The District Collector/District Election Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶42

4.The Commissioner, Corporation of

¶43

+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.5910 +1CC to Mr.I.Abrar Md Abdullah Advocate Sr.No.6483 +1CC to Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Advocate Sr.No.5928 +1CC to Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj Advocate Sr.No.5904

¶44

GJM/SKS/RR/12.2.16-3p-9C

¶45

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.1134 & 1135 of 2015 29.01.2016

¶46

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

A. Murugan v. the Tamilnadu State Election

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Murugan v. the Tamilnadu State Election

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

Nallathambi Vs the Joint Commissioner

A.Ramamoorthy Poosari Vs S.Kathiresan Poosari

Murugan@Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

The Secretary to Government, Vs Lakshmi Primary School

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs S.Mariappan, Special Grade

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs S. Kalaiselvan,S/O.Swaminathan