Partly allowed

P.Thirumoorthy v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3306/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition in part. The court quashed the 2016 Voter List for Aathikulam Panchayat and directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within fifteen days. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The 2016 Voter List was quashed. The second respondent was directed to look into the petitioner's representation and dispose of it within fifteen days.

P.Thirumoorthy Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.3306 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2706 and 2707 of 2017

¶5

P.Thirumoorthy .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Officer of the Voter Reregistration/Sub-Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.The Block Development Officer, Muthukulathoor Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

4.The Special Officer, Aathikulam Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the “2016 Voter List” dated 17.09.2016 published by the second respondent for the 31-Aathikulam Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2017 and direct the second respondent to release the “2011 Voter List” of Aathikulam Panchayat as it is without any changes.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J. ]

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Voter List prepared by the second respondent for Aathikulam Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District and quash the same by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus on the basis of representation dated 30.01.2017.

¶17

¶18

2.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has conceded to the effect that a fresh list is going to be prepared. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶19

3.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without

¶20

costs and the earlier Voters List prepared by the second respondent is quashed on the basis of representation made on the side of the second respondent and the second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 30.01.2017 alleged to have been given by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of fifteen days. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector,

¶27

Ramanathapuram District.

¶28

2.The Officer of the Voter Reregistration/Sub-Collector, District Collector Office,

¶29

Ramanathapuram District.

¶30

3.The Block Development Officer,

¶31

Muthukulathoor Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

4.The Special Officer,

¶33

Aathikulam Panchayat, Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

+1 cc to M/R.J.VIJAYARAJA, Advocate, SR.NO:16970 +1cc to M/S.SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO:16970

¶35

SVA/PM/PN/SAR3/28.03.2017/2P/7C

¶36

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3306 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2706 and 2707 of 2017 23.03.2017

¶37

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

P.Thirumoorthy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thirumoorthy v. the District Collector

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.Gopalsamy, Vs the Secretary

M.Thirupathi Vs the Principal Chief

V.Ramadass, Vs the State Commissioner of

Sathishkumar Vs the District Collector

G.Gopalsamy Vs the District Collector

S.Ponkrishnan, Vs State Rep. by