Dismissed

S.Kavitha v. The Tamil Nadu state Election commissioner

Madras HC20 Oct 2021WP/22168/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 praying for protection against political rivalry and monitoring of the election process. The Court disposed of the petition as infructuous since the local body elections had already been completed by the time of the order.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was disposed of as infructuous without going into merits.

S.Kavitha Vs The Tamil Nadu state Election commissioner — Election Law | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

W.P.No.22168 of 2021

¶8

S.Kavitha .. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Arumbakkam,

¶11

Chenai – 600 106.

¶12

The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶14

The Block Development Officer, Koliyanur, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 103.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District – 605 108. .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2021 comply with the genuine request made therein immediately without any further delay to protect the petitioner, her husband, family members and the other supporters/volunteers from the hands of the petitioner's political rivalry group, further directing the first respondent to monitor the entire election process right from polling till counting of votes,

¶17

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

¶18

declaring results by way of CCTV surveillance in order to ensure free and fair election.

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy

¶20

For the Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Standing Counsel for respondent No.1

¶21

: Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 5

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

The petition has become infructuous because of passage of time.

¶25

The matter pertained to the local body elections which have now been completed.

¶26

W.P.No.22168 of 2021 is disposed of without going into the merits thereof.

¶27

There will be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

sasi

¶32

To:

¶33

The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Arumbakkam,

¶34

Chenai – 600 106.

¶35

The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶36

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

¶37

The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶38

The Block Development Officer, Koliyanur, Villupuram District, Villupuram – 605 103. 5. The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District – 605 108.

¶39

W.P.No.22168 of 2021

¶40

RSI(CO) SU(26/10/2021)

¶41

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

S.Kavitha v. The Tamil Nadu state Election commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kavitha v. The Tamil Nadu 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 Chairman Cum M.D., Vs the Controlling Authority

V.Naaharaj Vs the Recovery Officer

M.Devadoss Vs The District Collector

G.Gopinath Vs The Managing Director

R.v.Dinesh Vs The Authorized officer

V.Kannammal Vs The Chief Election Commissioner