Disposed

Karthik Kannan v. Tamilnadu State Election

Madras HC27 Mar 2018WP/7094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the failure of the District Collector and Pallavapuram Municipality Commission to consider the petitioner's objections regarding ward delimitation. The High Court directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit remarks within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation and submit remarks to the 1st respondent within eight weeks; 1st respondent to pass orders on merits thereafter.

Karthik Kannan Vs Tamilnadu State Election — Election Law | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 27.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.7094 of 2018

¶6

Karthik Kannan ... Petitioner – Vs - 1. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and State Delimitation Commission, Represented by its Member Secretary, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Opposite to CMBT, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106. 2. The District Collector and The Delimitation Authority, District Collectorate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶7

The Commissioner/ the Delimitation Authority, Pallavapuram Municipality, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2018 before finalizing the delimitation of territorial area of new ward No.30(Old Ward No.28) of Pallavapuram Municipality in accordance with the principles and criteria stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations 2017 and consequently revise the territorial area of the New Ward No.30 accordingly.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu For Respondents : Mr.B.Nedunchezeyan Standing Counsel [For R1] Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Special Govt. Pleader [For R2] Mr.P.Srinivasan [For R3]

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Nedunchezeyan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶13

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2018 before finalizing the delimitation of territorial area of new ward No.30(Old Ward No.28) of Pallavapuram Municipality in accordance with the principles and criteria stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations 2017 and consequently, revise the territorial area of the New Ward No.30 accordingly.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sent his objections to the respondents and the 2^nd respondent has forwarded the same to the 4^th respondent to take necessary action. But, so far, no communication is received by the petitioner from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

¶16

The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law and after conducting enquiry, the same would be forwarded to the 1^st respondent.

¶17

In the light of the above submissions and the prayer sought for in the writ petition, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the 3^rd respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2018 and send his remarks to the 1^st respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt, the 1^st respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶18

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

ssn

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and State Delimitation Commission, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Opposite to CMBT, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106. 2. The District Collector and The Delimitation Authority, District Collectorate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Commissioner/ the Delimitation Authority, Pallavapuram Municipality, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. +1cc to Mr.K.Balu, Advocate, S.R.No.23285 +1cc to Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate, S.R.No.23807 +1cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.24000 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24333 W.P.No.7094 of 2018

¶26

PPA(CO) RRK(27/04/2018)

¶27

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

Karthik Kannan v. Tamilnadu State Election

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik Kannan v. 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

A.Selvaraj Vs The District Collector

M.Ranganathan, Vs The Executive Officer

C.Raja, S/o.C.Chinnakkannu Vs The Commissioner

E.Lavanya, Vs The District Collector

P.Kulandaivel, Vs The Executive Officer

S.Sugasini, Vs The Director General of