AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayarama Chouta, J.—This writ petition came up before me on 24.9.1996 and I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.
K. Balasubramaniam to take notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Advocate Mr. R. Viduthalai on behalf of first respondent, and
I directed the office to post this writ petition on 27.9.1996. On 27.9.1996 I heard Mr. R. Sellathurai, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner,
Mr. R. Viduthuali, learned Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. K. Balasubramaniam learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of
the respondents 2 to 4.
The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ call for the
records from the first respondent''s pertaining to his notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 482, dated
18.9.1996 insofar as it relates to the election for filing the vacancy of member of Ward No. 4 Aranthangi Panchayat Union, Pudukottai District and
quash the said notification and direct the respondents herein to declare the petitioner as duly elected unopposed member as per Section 32(1)(a)
of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules in the election processes held to the Ward No. 4, Arantangi Panchayat Union, Arantangi,
Pudukottai District.
The grievance of the petitioner is that insofar as in Ward No. 4, Arantangi Panchayat Union, his nomination is the only valid nomination and as
per Section 32(1)(a) of the Act. the third respondent Returning Officer ought to have declared him as duly elected, that being so, at the instance of
certain vested interest, he had high handedly and unauthorisedly sent report to the State Election1 Commissioner stating that file was missing since
1.00 p.m. on 13.9.1996, and very curiously a police complaint was lodged before the Arantangi police station at 11.30 p.m. on 13.9.1996 about
the missing of file, which clearly goes to show that the second and fourth respondents are acting in unison with the ruling party by flouting all rules
and regulations and have made the entire election processes a mockery.
Learned Advocate submitted that second election notification is illegal and not sustainable either in law or on facts which affect the petitioner''s
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the time of last date for withdrawal, the petitioner was
the only contesting candidate and there was no impediment for declaring the petitioner duly elected, but the respondents have conspired to stall the
election process and deny the petitioner to his constitutional rights.
Learned Advocate further submitted that it is not one of the ground for declaring election to be void as contemplated in Rule 136 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules''). On these grounds, he pointed out that the writ petition should be
allowed and the relief mentioned above should be granted.
On the other hand learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Mr. R. Viduthalai took me to Rule 143 of the above rules which reads as
follows:
Removal of difficulties, if any, by State Election Commission: (1) The State Election Commissioner may issue such general or special directions as
may in its opinion be necessary, for the purpose of giving due effect to these rules, or holding any election under the Act.
(2) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of these rules, or in holding any election, the State Election Commission as occasion may
require may, by order do anything which appears to it necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty,
Placing reliance on the above rule, learned Advocate for the first respondent submitted that when the file with a list of nominations was missing,
on the basis of the reports of the District Election Officer, the State Election Commissioner facing difficulty for He conduct of election to said
Ward, and since it :as become expedient for the State Election Commission, declared of the proceedings of the Returning Officer and Assistant
Returning Officer of the lid Ward taken in pursuance of Rules 25(1) 26, 28,?9 and 30 of the said Rules as null and void and there is nothing wrong
in doing so. He has further submitted that only for such a contingency this Rule as been introduced, According to him the State Election
Commissioner has acted on the basis of the reports of the two responsible officers that the District, section Officer and the Collector of
Pudukkottai against whom no mala fide has been attributed by the petitioner. He concluded his submissions by saying that, no prejudice will be
caused to the petitioner and the petitioner has got right to file his nomination and contest in the fresh election.
On these grounds, he has asked this Court to dismiss the writ petition. Learned Additional Government Pleader supported the contention of the
learned Advocate for the first respondent.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing he relevant documents and going through the provisions in the rules, I am of the opinion that
there is considerable force in the argument of the learned\advocate for the first respondent. Rule 143 of the above rules is meant to apply to cases
of this nature. Since the file of the nomination papers is missing the third respondent Returning Officer sought the assistance of the first respondent
who is turn invoking he provisions of Rule 143 of the Rules issued a fresh notification. The petitioner, except saying that the respondents have
played fraud at the instance of the ruling party, has not substantiated the said plea. J Further, nothing is attributed to the District Election Officer
and the Collector of Pudukottai on whose reports, the State Election Commissioner has acted upon. Rule 136 on which reliance has been placed
by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has no application to a pre-election matter. Further, there is no prejudice to the petitioner has he can file
his nomination and contest in the fresh election. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I see no merit in this writ petition and this writ petition is
rejected. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 18856 of 1996 is dismissed.