This writ petition challenging an election notification was dismissed. The Court held that since the petitioner participated in the electoral process by offering nomination, he cannot subsequently question the validity of the rejection or the notification.
Writ petition dismissed; Returning Officer directed to serve rejection order on the petitioner.
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.
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
Pitchai
... Petitioner
Vs
1/4
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned Election Notification issued by the first respondent in respect of Palayanoor Kanmai(Pond) in Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District for the posts of “The President of Water usage Association” and “Members of the Managing Committee of the Water Users Association” vide Notification Na.Ka.No.Ji,1/17759/2021, dated 02.12.2022 and consequently set aside the same as illegal for the reasons in the manner of violation of the provision in section 4 of Rules in the Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 (Tamilnadu Act 7 of 2001) and to direct fresh notification to the first respondent after allowing the same Act as per law within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to him, the procedure set out in the relevant statute has not been followed. I am however not in a position to consider the said submissions for the simple reason that the
2/4
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
petitioner had taken part in electoral process. He offered his nomination. For certain reasons his nomination was rejected. Following the rejection of the nomination, the petitioner wants to question the election notification. It is clearly not permissible in law. A person who took part in the process cannot turn round and challenge the validity of the process thereafter.
3.Leaving open all the other contentions and remedies of the writ petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. The Returning Officer is directed to serve a copy of the rejection order on the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.12.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA
To
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.29031 of 2022
23.12.2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a person who has taken part in an electoral process by offering nomination can challenge the validity of the election notification after their nomination is rejected.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pitchai
The District Collector, Sivagangai
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
