Disposed

D.Vijayalakshmi v. The Chief Election Officer

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10328/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking direction to consider a representation alleging suppression of pendency of criminal cases by the fourth respondent. Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the second respondent to pass orders after giving notice to the fourth respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2 to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within three months after notice to respondent no.4.

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.10328 of 2016

¶6

D.Vijayalakshmi ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1. The Chief Election Officer,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Opp.(CMBT) Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106,
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore – 641 001,
3. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore – 641 001,
4. K.A.Aadhinarayanan ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 29.02.2016.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan,

¶10

Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶11

for RR.1 and 2

¶12

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

2. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 29.2.2016. In the said representation, the petitioner has alleged that the 4 th respondent has suppressed the pendency of criminal cases, which

¶14

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

¶15

have been filed against him for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in this regard the petitioner would state that C.C.No.58 of 2004 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.II, Poonamallee and the case is pending from 2003 and only in 2015 the same has been settled and the complaint was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the fourth respondent has suppressed all these facts and he has been elected as Ward Counsellor of Ward No.80 of the 3rd respondent Corporation. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to respondent No.4, the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner as against the 4th respondent are not gone into. In any event, there is a representation made by the petitioner alleging suppression of pendency of criminal cases by the 4 th respondent and and case numbers have also been given. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the 2 nd respondent to take into consideration the representation made by the petitioner dated 29.2.2016 and after notice to the 4 th respondent, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
1. The Chief Election Officer,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Opp.(CMBT) Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106,
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore – 641 001,
3. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore – 641 001,
+ 1 cc to Mr.N.Ponraj, Advocate SR 17877
sai(co)
prk31/3 WP.No.10328/2016

¶17

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

D.Vijayalakshmi v. The Chief Election Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Vijayalakshmi v. The Chief Election Officer

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

P.Preetha, Vs The State Commissioner for

M.Mani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector

The Superintending Engineer, Vs M.Kanniapan, Forman Grade I

D.Selvakumar Vs the District Collector

R.Mythili Vs The Deputy Collector (L.a)