Dismissed

K.Mala v. The Tamil Nadu State Election

Madras HC13 Dec 2024WP/771/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a panchayat union ward election result by writ seeking recount under Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995. The Court held that election disputes fall exclusively under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, requiring an election petition before the District Judge within fifteen days, and dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Mala Vs The Tamil Nadu State Election — Election Law | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.771 & 775 of 2020

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.931 & 941 of 2020

¶8

K.Mala .. Petitioner in W.P.No.771 of 2020 S.Vennial .. Petitioner in W.P.No.775 of 2020

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Opp. to CMBT, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Salem District – 636 001.

¶12

3.The Election Officer / Block Development Officer, Nangavalli Panchayat Union, Salem District – 636 501. .. 1^st to 3^rd Respondents in both WPs

¶13

4.R.Selvi .. 4^th respondent in W.P.No.771 of 2020

¶14

5.Sumathi .. 4^th respondent in W.P.No.775 of 2020

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in connection with the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 and to quash the same and to direct the 3^rd respondent to conduct recounting of votes as per the mandatory provisions of Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995.

¶19

For Petitioner .. Mr.Praveennath Selvam, in both WPs. For R1 .. Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam, Standing Counsel, in both WPs. For R2 & R3 .. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Govt. Advocate, in both WPs. For R4 .. Mr.I.Paranthaman in W.P.No.775 of 2020

¶20

ORDER

¶21

These Writ Petitions have been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified

¶22

Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent, Election Officer / Block Development Officer, Nangavalli Panchayat Union, Salem District, in connection with the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 and to quash the same and also direct the 3^rd respondent to recount the votes as per the mandatory provisions of Rule 66 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

2.It is seen that the petitioners seek this Court to call for the records of

¶26

the election conducted for the post of Union Ward Member and direct recounting of votes. Elections have been conducted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Section 258 of the Act, falls under the category of disputes regarding election. Section 258 of the Act is very clear. It states that no election of President or Chairman or member shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented before the District Judge of the district in which the panchayat is situated, within 15 days from the date of the publication of the result of the election under this Act.

¶27

3.Section 258(1) of the Act is as follows:

¶28

“258.Election Petitions:-

¶29

(1). No election of a President or a Chairman or a member shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge of the district in which the Panchayat is situated, within fifteen days from the date of the publication of the result of the election under this Act.”

¶30

4.These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

India are not maintainable. The Writ Petitioners should have filed a suit.

¶34

They should have filed the suit within 15 days of the date of publication of

¶35

the result. The Writ Petitions are of the year 2020. This Court has no jurisdiction to examine the issues raised in the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

13.12.2024

¶37

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

1.The District Collector, Erode District.

¶42

2.The Assistant Returning Officer, Panchayat President Election cum Regional Deputy Block Development Officer, Thookanayakkanpalayam, Gobichettipalayam (TK), Erode District.

¶43

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶44

smv

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

W.P.Nos. 771 & 775 of 2020

¶48

13.12.2024

¶49

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

K.Mala v. The Tamil Nadu State Election

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Mala v. The Tamil Nadu State Election

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kandhasamy Vs The District Collector/Appellate Tribunal

M/S Vkss and Co. Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Atlas Enterprises Vs The Regional Transport Officer

C.Palaniappan Vs the Tamil Nadu State Election

Shoba Vijayakumar Vs The Municipal Commissioner

K.Devi Vs the District collector