Dismissed

G.K.Ezhil v. the State Election Commissioner

Madras HC3 Sept 2021WA/1159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal against an order dismissing a writ petition challenging an election was dismissed. The High Court held that the appellant failed to raise objections within the stipulated timeframe for the voters list and did not exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, thereby failing to establish the case.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

G.K.Ezhil Vs the State Election Commissioner — Election Law | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

¶7

W.A.No.1159 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.7335 of 2021

¶8

G.K.Ezhil ... Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The State Election Commissioner Co-operative Elections, Kamadhenu Super Market Building, No.273, Scheme Road, Subburaya Nagar, Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai -18.

¶11

The District Election Officer, (Cooperative Socities), Tiruvallur Region, Tiruvallur.

¶12

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperartive Socities, Ponneri Circle, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

The Election Officer, N.G.1254, Saidapet Taluk Agricultural Procedures Cooperative Marketing society Ltd., No.293, G.N.T. Road, Redhills, Chennai.

¶14

T.Pappa

¶15

P.Pushparani

¶16

J.Santhanammal

¶17

K.Anthony

¶18

M.Ramesh

¶19

10.S.Rajkumar

¶20

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

11.R.Susairaj

12.S.Thenmozhi

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the final order dated 01.09.2020, made in W.P.No.21269 of 2019.

¶25

Prayer in W.P.No.21269 of 2019: To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Dispute No.81/2019/Sa.Pa dated 25.06.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct fresh election for electing Board of Directors in N.G.1254, Saidapet Taluk Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., No.293, G.N.T. Road, Redhills, Chennai.

¶26

For Appellant : Mr.C.Prakasam

¶27

For R1 to R4 : Ms.Akila Rajendiran Government Counsel

¶28

For R5 to R12 : Mr.S.Kamadevan

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

(Delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana.J., )

¶31

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.21269 of 2019 dated 01.09.2020.

¶32

2.The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21269 of 2019, challenging the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Dispute No.81/2019/Sa.Pa dated 25.06.2019.

¶33

3.The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitioner, found that the petitioner has alleged that the entire election was vitiated due to the violation of Rule 52(5)(1)(A)(1) and Rule 52(5)(11)(A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socities Rules. It appears that the objection was raised by the writ petitioner by way of Election Petition filed under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Socities Act, and the same was

¶34

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

¶35

rejected by the 3^rd respondent, vide order impugned in the writ petition.

¶36

4.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is an effective alternative remedy available for the petitioner under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Socities Act (hereinafter referred as “The Act“) by filing a Revision before the concerned Registrar. Without exhausting the said remedy, the writ petitioner has approached the Writ Court for the relief. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy by filing a Revision under Section 153 of the Act.

¶37

5.The appellant herein without following the direction given by the learned Single Judge, has preferred the present appeal.

¶38

6.The learned Government Counsel submitted that the 3^rd respondent filed the counster affidavit before the learned Single Judge stating that the election notification with election schedule was issued on 19.09.2018 in Dinamani news paper and the draft voters list was published calling for the objections, if any, for addition and deletion of the names in the voters list on before 27.09.2018. Pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner has not raised any objections, but, filed the writ petition. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is not sustainable either in law or facts.

¶39

7.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Government counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 12.

¶40

8.The writ petitioner was one of the members of the Election Board of the 4^th respondent Society and he had already contested in the election succesfully and completed his term. Therefore, he is well aware of the members list of Electoral College. The 3^rd respondent, in his order dated 25.06.2019, has also specifically mentioned that the writ petitioner has not raised any objections at the relevant point of time. It will be appropriate to extract the order passed by the 3^rd respondent. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:

¶41

''thjpapd; Tw;wpd;go 15/09/2018 njjpapl;l 4 tJ gpujpthjp r';f nju;jy; ml;ltiz mwptpg;iga[k; 15/12/2018 njjpapy; nju;e;bjLf;fg;gl;l ntl;ghsu;fis mwptpj;jija[k;

¶42

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

¶43

uj;J bra;J r';f eph;thf FGit fiyj;J 4tJ gpujpthjpf;fhd r';fj;jpw;fhd njh;jiy elj;jk; tifapy; thjpahy; mWjpapl;L mjw;Fhpa Mtz';fs; VJk; M$u;glj;jptpy;iy/ jhth bjhlu;ghf cupa tpsf;f';fs; mspf;ft[k; Mtz';fs; ghu;itaplt[k; ,U jug;gpdUf;F nghjpa mtfhrk; mspf;fg;gl;lJ bjhlu;g[ilatu;fspy; thf;F K:yj;jpida[k; nju;jy; bjhlu;ghd Mtz';fs; guprPypj;j tifapYk; khtl;l njh;jy; mYtyupd; mwptpg;gpd;go r';fk; thf;fhsu; gl;oay; nfhUupikfnsh my;yJ guprPyidapd;nghJk; Ml;nrgizfs; kWg;g[f;fs; mspj;jplt[k; fhy mtfhrk; mwptpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;L njh;jy; eltof;iffs; eilbgw;Ws;s epiyapYk; thjp ,j; nju;jypy; jFjpahd ntl;ghsuhf mwptpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;L nju;jypy; nghl;oapid vjpu;bfhz;Ls;s epiyapYk; nju;jy; eilbgw;W 66 ehl;fs; fHpj;J thf;Ffs; vz;zp nju;jy; Kot[ mwptpg;g[ bra;a[k; tiuapYk; nju;jy; eltof;if fhy';fspy; ,th; ,j;nju;jy; eltof;iffspy; Ml;nrgiz bjuptpj;jikf;F nghJkhd Mtz';fis thjp M$u;gLj;jhj epiyapYk; thjpapd; jhth rl;luPjpahf bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd Kot[ bra;J jhthtpid js;Sgo bra;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/''

¶44

9.Therefore, even on the merits of the case, the writ petitioner, who is well aware of the provisions of the Act and also aware of the members list of the Electoral College, instead of raising objection, before the concerned Officer, has filed the writ petition, and now he cannot be allowed to raise objections after the completion of election. He has also failed to produce the supporting documents for the allegations, which he made. As pointed out by the learned Government Counsel, he has not filed any objections when the voters list was published, granting time for addition and deletion of the names contained therein.

¶45

10.Even today, when the matter is taken up, the appellant is directed to exhaust the remedy under Section 153 of the Act, but, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted that, since already application under Section 90 was dismissed, the appellant would not preferred to file a Revision and hence he has preferred the present Writ Appeal. As found supra, when the writ petitioner failed to establish his case by way of any document for the allegations/objections he has raised with respect of the conduct of the election of the Electoral College, he cannot be given any indulgence except to dismiss his writ appeal.

¶46

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

¶47

11.In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶52

rst

¶53

To:

¶54

The State Election Commissioner Co-operative Elections, Kamadhenu Super Market Building, No.273, Scheme Road, Subburaya Nagar, Teynampet, Anna Salai, Chennai -18.

¶55

The District Election Officer, (Cooperative Socities), Tiruvallur Region, Tiruvallur.

¶56

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperartive Socities, Ponneri Circle, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

¶57

The Election Officer, N.G.1254, Saidapet Taluk Agricultural Procedures Cooperative Marketing society Ltd., No.293, G.N.T. Road, Redhills, Chennai.

¶58

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.44898

¶59

W.A.No.1159 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.7335 of 2021

¶60

AJS(CO) SU(22/09/2021)

¶61

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

G.K.Ezhil v. the State Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.K.Ezhil v. the State Election Commissioner

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

The Management Vs Tmt.Venmathi

The Secretary to Government Vs a.Dhanabalan

D.Selvaraj B.Sc. B.Ed. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.G.Gopal Vs Union of India

A.M.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

P.Deekaraman(Deceased Vs R.Jeyachandran