Dismissed

Ko.Munetram v. Chief Election Officer

Madras HC10 Apr 2023WP/13232/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL filed under Article 226 challenging the constitutionality of Section 4A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act as amended. The Court held that adjudication of the Act’s validity at this stage was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition stand disposed of; petitioner at liberty to approach competent authority.

Ko.Munetram Vs Chief Election Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.13232 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.13232 of 2006 and W.M.P.No.14845 of 2006

KO.Munnetram

.. Petitioner

Chief Election Officer Tamil Nadu.

¶11

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai – cum – District Election Officer Corporation of Chennai Chennai 3.

¶12

Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Law Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Section 4A of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959 as amended by Act 55 of 1992 is illegal, ultravires and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and so for the petitioner is concerned.

¶15

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : No Appearance

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 1 of 4

W.P.No.13232 of 2006

ORDER

The writ on hand has been filed to declare Section 4A of the

¶21

Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 as amended by Act 55 of 1992 is illegal, ultravires and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and so for the petitioner is concerned.

¶22

The writ petition was instituted in the year 2006. The validity of the Act, at this length of time, deserves no further adjudication and if at all any grievance exists with reference to the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority in the manner known to law.

¶23

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶25

Index : Yes/No 10.04.2023 Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶26

drm

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 2 of 4

W.P.No.13232 of 2006

To:

Chief Election Officer Tamil Nadu.

¶32

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai – cumDistrict Election Officer Corporation of Chennai Chennai 3.

¶33

Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Law Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.No.13232 of 2006

¶37

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

drm

W.P.No.13232 of 2006

10.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Ko.Munetram v. Chief Election Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ko.Munetram v. Chief Election Officer

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

S.Easwaran Vs the Tahsildar

E.Venkatesan Vs The Secretary

Thangaraj (deceased) Vs Chief General Manager

B.Poornachandar Vs The Government of India

Bannari Amman Sugars Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

M/S. Galaxy Ameze Kingdom Vs Union of India