Dismissed¶42

Dhamodharan Ks v. The Chief Electoral Officer

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP(MD)/24008/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Advocate's remuneration dispute; prosecution counsel appointed by District Election Officer/Collector, Theni for four criminal cases (C.C.Nos.11-14 of 2006, Andipatti) based on Returning Officer's complaints, Andipatti Assembly Constituency; claim for monthly retainership fees of Rs.5,000/- beyond hearing fees, balance Rs.2,56,170/- with 18% interest per G.O.Ms. No.754 and G.O.Ms.No.36; termination order Rc.No. 34752/2018/G1 dated 30.07.2024; retrospective termination and revocation of Vakalat discussed; fees already settled; writ petition dismissed, impugned order sustained.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶42

Dhamodharan Ks Vs The Chief Electoral Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, engaged to prosecute four criminal cases (C.C.Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2006), was entitled, apart from hearing fees, to monthly fees of Rs.5,000/- payable up to his alleged termination on 30.07.2024, involving a further sum of Rs.2,56,170/- with interest at 18% under the cited G.O.s. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The writ petitioner was not appointed as a Standing counsel for the Election Commission in Andipatti Court; the only purpose of appointing him was to prosecute the four cases, and the moment the cases ended the relationship between the writ petitioner and the election commission came to an end.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's fees has already been settled, as confirmed by the learned Standing counsel and accepted by the Court.

¶42

Key takeaways

While termination with retrospective effect does not appear to be in order, termination itself was wholly unnecessary; after the cases are over, the question of revoking Vakalat does not arise at all.obiter¶41
The order impugned in the writ petition is sustained and the writ petition is dismissed; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (G.R. Swaminathan, J.) dismissed a writ petition by an advocate (K.S. Dhamodharan) under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order in Rc.No. 34752/2018/G1 dated 30.07.2024 of the District Election Officer/Collector, Theni, and to direct release of balance legal remuneration of Rs.2,56,170/- with 18% interest (per G.O.Ms. No.754 Home (Courts I) dated 12.06.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 12.01.2011 Home (Courts VI A) Department) for prosecuting four criminal cases, C.C.Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2006 (District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti), arising from complaints filed by the Returning Officer, Andipatti Assembly Constituency. Appointed by the District Collector's order dated 17.08.2007, the petitioner claimed monthly fees of Rs.5,000/- besides hearing fees till his alleged termination on 30.07.2024 and objected to termination with retrospective effect. The Court held that the petitioner was not appointed as Standing Counsel for the Election Commission in Andipatti Court, that his engagement was solely for the four cases which ended on 15.10.2019, and that the relationship ended once the cases concluded. While observing that retrospective termination did not appear to be in order, the Court held termination itself was wholly unnecessary as revocation of Vakalat did not arise after the cases ended; the learned Standing Counsel confirmed the fees had already been settled. The impugned order was sustained and the petition dismissed with no costs, the connected miscellaneous petition being closed.

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.24008 OF 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.24008 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.18830 of 2025

¶6

K.S.Dhamodharan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Chief Electoral Officer, Principal Secretary to Government, Public (Election IT) and Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

The District Election Officer & Collector of Theni District, Collectorate, Theni.

¶10

The Electoral Registration Officer & Revenue Division Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the relevant records of the second respondent which culminated in the issuance of the impugned order passed in Rc.No. 34752/2018/G1, dated 30.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the balance of the petitioner's legitimate legal remuneration

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

2 W.P.(MD)NO.24008 OF 2025

¶15

of Rs.2,56,170/- for the services rendered by the petitioner, with respect to the criminal cases, in C.C.Nos.11, 12, 13 & 14 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, together with interest at the rate of 18% in terms of the G.O.Ms. No.754 Home (Courts I) dated 12.06.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 12.01.2011 Home (Courts VI A) Department.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

The writ petitioner is a practising lawyer. The District

¶22

Collector, Theni (District Election Officer) appointed the writ petitioner to prosecute the criminal complaints filed by the returning officer, Andipatti Assembly Constituency. As many as four cases were filed and prosecuted. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that apart from hearing fees, he was also entitled to be paid monthly fees of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner would claim that only on 30.07.2024, he was terminated and that he was entitled to be paid till date of

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

3 W.P.(MD)NO.24008 OF 2025

¶26

termination. He would further add that he could not have been terminated with retrospective effect. According to him, a further sum of Rs.2,56,170/- has to be paid. Since his request was rejected by the second respondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶27

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

¶28

The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Standing counsel took me through its contents. According to the learned Standing counsel, there is no merit in the writ petitioner's demand.

¶29

I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶30

The order dated 17.08.2007 issued by the District

¶31

Collector, Theni appointing the writ petitioner and other counsel reads as follows:-

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

4 W.P.(MD)NO.24008 OF 2025

¶35

It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner had handled only four

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

5 W.P.(MD)NO.24008 OF 2025

¶39

cases. They are C.C.Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2006.

¶40

It is not in dispute that all these four cases, ended on

¶41

15.10.2019. The writ petitioner was not appointed as a Standing counsel for the Election Commission in Andipatti Court. The only purpose of appointing him was to prosecute the aforementioned four cases. The moment the cases ended, the relationship between the writ petitioner and the election commission also came to an end. While termination with the retrospective effect does not appear to be in order, termination itself was wholly unnecessary. After the cases are over, the question of revoking Vakalat does not arise at all.

¶42

The learned Standing counsel confirms that the petitioner's fees has already been settled. The order impugned in this writ petition is sustained. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

14.10.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶45

5/7

¶46

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

¶47