A municipal zone chairman sought a writ to restrain an impending no-confidence motion against him. The court found no resolution or consequential order existed for challenge and held the petition was filed prematurely. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
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.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
Petitioner
versus
Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents against the impending Motion of No Confidence scheduled against the petitioner (Chairman Zone-3, Sembakkam). This restraint sought until an order is pronounced by this esteemed High Court of Madras pertaining to the potential removal from the position of Chairman, or any other orders or
1/4
W.P.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
directives that this Court deems fitting and proper under the extant facts and circumstances of the present case and thus ensuring the equitable administration of Justice.
For Petitioner : M/s.Preethi Basker For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner, who claims to be the Chairman for Zone-3, Sembakkam, T ambaram Corporation has stated that some of the Ward Counsellors are acting against him and they are making hectic attempts to convene a Counsellor Meeting and pass a No Confidence Motion against him.
3. M/s.Preethi Basker, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an elected Chairman for Zone-3, Sembakkam and there is no serious allegations against the petitioner. Some of the Counsellors, who are acting against the interest of the public are making attempts to stop the good work done by the petitioner by way of passing a No Confidence Motion.
2/4
W.P.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
4. Mr.P.Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes
notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and submits that the petition itself is a
prematured one, as the petitioner has not challenged any order.
5. The petitioner's prayer is to stop someone from conducting a meeting. No resolution of the meeting or any consequential orders passed in pursuant to the meeting are available for challenge. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition by assuming that No Confidence Motion would be passed against him and thereafter he might be removed from his Chairmanship. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court in a prematured manner.
Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed a s not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.02.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
3/4
W.P.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
To
R.N.MANJULA, J.
sri
W.P.No.3114 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.3394 of 2024
09.02.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Is a writ petition premature where the petitioner seeks restraint on a not-yet-held no-confidence meeting with no resolution or order to challenge?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Jaya Pradeep
The District Collector, Chengalpattu
The Mayor, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation
The Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
