Petitioners sought a writ to declare a cooperative society election null and void. The court dismissed the petition as a subsequent valid election had been conducted, noting the petitioner's remedy lay with the Committee regarding procedural irregularities at the election commission.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :24.09.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P(MD)No.20202 of 2018
1.S.Vaithiyalingam 2.R.Mariappan 3.K.Paramasivan 4.C.Katturaja 5.A.Murugan 6.S.Chellappa 7.A.Vijayakumar 8.M.Subbulakshmi 9.S.Gomathi 10.R.Samuthiram .. Petitioners Vs.
O.1750 Vellalangulam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Vellalangulam, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declare that the election conducted in respect of the 0.1750 Vellalangulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Vellalangulam, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.322/2018/Koo.The.1 dated 05.03.2018 as null and void.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.K.Chella Pandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian Special Government Pleader
2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
The petitioners have sought for declaration to declare the election conducted earlier as null and void.
2.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioners' nomination were rejected and earlier election was cancelled. Though it was proceeded in pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench, thereafter, subsequent election was conducted for the office bearers on 24.08.2018.
3.By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that nominations have been wrongly accepted. The Election Commission has stayed the election. Therefore, this writ petition will have to be allowed.
4.We are not inclined to allow this writ petition. From the records produced by the learned Additional Advocate General, it appears that nomination of the petitioners have been rejected. This will only indicate that other members have been elected as Directors. Thereafter, Officer Bearers have been elected and none of them are before this Court. If the writ petition is allowed, certainly, those persons would have affected. Therefore, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to approach the Committee, if the complaint already made is pending before it. If that is a case, the subsequent election conducted would certainly become nullity, provided, the Committee finds subsistence in the election which is stated to be pending.
5.With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. This order is also passed for the reason that anything done after the orders of the Court would become nullity in a case where a specific direction is issued and in pursuant to it, the Hon'ble Committee finds that there are procedural irregularities. Therefore, the subsequent election made contrary to the orders of the Division Bench and found to be illegal will not give any right to anybody. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
3
To
+1cc to Mr.R.J.Karthick, Advocate Sr.No.86051 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.86249 VS
VB/RP/SAR2/11.10.2018/3P/6C
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.20202 of 2018 24.09.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking declaration of nullity of the election should be allowed after a subsequent election was conducted validly.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a declaration of nullity when the subsequent electorates were not before the court.
S.Vaithiyalingam and others
The Commissioner, Election Commission for Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society
M.M.SUNDRESH
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
