Disposed

B.Kosimani v. the Secretary

Madras HC19 Aug 2025WP/31087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking declaration of Prathabaramapuram Village Panchayat as a reserved category panchayat for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, based on the petitioner's pending representation dated 03.06.2025. The court directed the first respondent to decide on the representation on merits within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition with no costs.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025 on merits within twelve weeks; no costs.

B.Kosimani Vs the Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶6

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶7

B.Kosimani

¶8

S/o. Balakrishnan, No. 4/ 1040-1 Thachar Street, Prathabaramapuram, Kilvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam 611111

Petitioner(s)

1. The Secretary

Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, St. George Fort Chennai 09

¶13

2.The Commissioner

¶14

Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Chennai 15

¶15

3.The Secretary Tamil Nadu State Election Commission Office, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Koyambedu Chennai 106

¶16

4.Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶20

Tamil Nadu State Election Commission Office, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu Chennai 106

¶21

5.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Department Chennai 09

¶22

6.The District Election Officer Cum District Collector Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam

¶23

7.The Block Development Officer Block Development Office, Kilvelur Block And Taluk, Nagapattinam District

¶24

Respondent(s)

¶25

PRAYER

¶26

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the Prathabaramapuram Village panchayat as a Reserved category panchayat for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and thereby passing orders on petitioner representation dated 3.06.2025 within a time frame.

¶27

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Tamizh Selvan For Respondent(s): Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, Agp For R1 R2 And R5

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(1) Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts

¶33

notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 5. With the consent of both the

¶34

learned counsels, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the

¶35

admission stage itself.

¶36

(2) The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to declare

¶37

the Prathabaramapuram Village panchayat, as a Reserved category panchayat for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes by considering and passing orders

¶38

on petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025 within a time frame.

¶39

(3) The petitioner is a permanent resident of Prathabaramapuram village, which is a Village Panchayat. The petitioner states that majority of the residents of the Panchayat belong to Scheduled Caste Community [Adi Dravidar]. The petitioner, based on the information obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, states that originally in the elections conducted in the year 1996, the post of President of Prathabaramapuram Village Panchayat, was reserved for Scheduled Caste Community [Woman]. But, subsequently,

¶40

the post of the Panchayat President, was alternated between General and

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶44

reserved categories over the years. The petitioner further states that over the

¶45

years, the members of the same family belonging to Backward Class community, continued to occupy the position of Village Panchayat President.

¶46

The petitioner states that as the Village Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled

¶47

Caste [Woman] in the years 1996 and 2001, the Government and the State Election Commission must classify the Village Panchayat as Reserved Category Panchayat so as to ensure rightful participation of eligible candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Community

¶48

in future elections. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 03.06.2025 and since no action was taken, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶49

(4) Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶50

(5) Admittedly, the petitioner received information under the Right To

¶51

Information Act, 2005, on 27.02.2025, that in the elections conducted in the years 1996 and 2001, the post of Village Panchayat President, Prathabaramapuram Village, was declared as Reserved Category Panchayat

¶52

for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates [woman]. It is further

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶56

seen that in the elections conducted during 2006, 2011 and 2016, the Village

¶57

Panchayat was declared as General and therefore, the petitioner submitted a

¶58

representation on 21.09.2015, to re-classify the Village Panchayat as a Reserved Category Panchayat. Since no action was taken, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 03.06.2025.

¶59

(6) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the As

¶60

the petitioner's representation is kept pending without any action being taken thereon, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2025, on merits and

¶61

in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶62

(7) The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶63

19-08-2025

¶64

¶65

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶66

¶67

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

¶68

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶69

¶70

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

WP No. 31087 of 2025

1.The Secretary

Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, St. George Fort Chennai 09

¶75

2.The Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Chennai 15

¶76

3.The Secretary Tamil Nadu State Election Commission Office, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Koyambedu Chennai 106

¶77

4.Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner Tamil Nadu State Election Commission Office, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Koyambedu Chennai 106

¶78

5.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Department Chennai 09

¶79

6.The District Election Officer Cum District Collector Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam

¶80

7.The Block Development Officer Block Development Office, Kilvelur Block And Taluk, Nagapattinam District

¶81

¶82

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

WP No. 31087 of 2025

N.MALA J.

WP No. 31087 of 2025

¶87

19-08-2025

¶88

¶89

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

B.Kosimani v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Kosimani v. the Secretary

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

The Oxford Matriculation school Vs The District Collector

R.Jeeva Vs the Regional Deputy Commissioner(North)

N.Sathishkumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

J.Chandrasekaran Vs the District Collector

K.Madhu Vs the District Revenue Officer

P.Alamelu Saruthri Vs the District Collector