The Commissioner v. v.Nirmala
Case brief
What is this about?
Civil revision petitions filed under Article 226 to set aside an election order became infructuous due to the expiry of the tenure of the post. The court held the prayers no longer meaningful.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision petitions dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.202 of 2022 and 2107 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.202 of 2022 and 2107 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.879 of 2022 and 11154 of 2021
C.R.P.(MD).No.202 of 2022
1.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
208/2, Jawaharlal Road, Opp CMBT, Arumbakkam Chennai.
- 2.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Thanthonimalai, Karur.
- 3.Assistant Returning Officer, Kadavur Panchayat Union, Karur. ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 3
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether civil revision petitions challenging an election order are maintainable after the expiry of the office's tenure.
If the tenure of the post has expired, whether the prayer to set aside the order has become infructuous.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
- petitioner
The District Collector, District Collectorate, Thanthonimalai
- petitioner
Assistant Returning Officer, Kadavur Panchayat Union
- respondent
V.Nirmala
- respondent
M.Arockiyamary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court