AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan. J.
The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from conducting the election for the post of Senate
Member of the Annamalai University from out of the constituency of Municipal Councilors of the 3rd Respondent in pursuance of the 2nd
Respondent''s election notice dated 20.11.2000 in Al/9801/97 and declaring the results of the said election and to conduct the said election afresh
in accordance with the Annamalai University Act 1928 without in any manner distinctively marking the ballot papers and without including the 4th
Respondent in the constituency. The Petitioner is one of the nominees before the 2nd Respondent namely the Returning Officer for Annamalai
University Senate elections which was scheduled to be held on 24.11.2000. His nomination was found in order and the Petitioner was declared as
an eligible candidate. When the Petitioner came to know that the election process followed by the 2nd Respondent was not in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, made a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 1.12.2000 and the said representation was not responded. Therefore, the
Petitioner issued a lawyer''s notice on 2.12.2000. Even thereafter, there was no response to the lawyer''s notice from the 2nd Respondent.
Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition.
Mr. K. Chandra Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner elaborately argued on various points and more particularly would submit
that the entire election process was against the provisions of the Annamalai University Act and Statutes. He submitted that there was no secrecy
maintained in the election process as the 2nd Respondent, the Returning Officer, had acted unlawfully by marking each and every ballot paper by
distinctive serial number. The 2nd Respondent has also included the 4th Respondent namely the Chairman of Chidambaram Municipality as one of
the electors contrary to the provisions of the Act and statutes. The Learned Senior Counsel submitted that when a statute requires a particular
procedure to be followed, the Authorities cannot follow a different procedure and adopt their own method. For the said purpose, the Learned
Senior Counsel relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Miss Raj Soni Vs. Air Officer in Charge Administration and another, .
Mr. K.R. Tamizhmani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that pursuant to the direction of
this Court in W.P. No. 13018 of 1999 dated 13.10.2000 directing the 1st Respondent in this writ petition to initiate action forthwith to start the
election process, notify and complete the election and declare the election results within two months from the date of receipt of the order, the 1st
Respondent in his proceedings No. Roc. 21569/97/PC1 dated 14.11.2000 ordered for conduct of fresh election with a direction to complete the
process by 10.12.2000. Therefore, a notification was issued on 20.11.2000 calling for nominations with effect from 20.11.2000 and to declare the
election results on 6.12.2000. Based upon the above notification, nominations were received from three councilors and one among them withdrew
his candidature within the stipulated time. Finally one Thiru C. Kannadasan and Thiru R. Senthilkumar were the contestants in the election, ballot
papers were also sent to all the electors on 28.11.2000 by registered post with acknowledgement due. As per the election notification, polled
ballot papers were received upto 4.00 p.m. on 6.12.21)00 and the counting of ballot papers was fixed at 4.30 p.m. on 6.12.2000. However, at
the instance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court passed an order of injunction against announcing the results of the election by
order dated 5.12.2000. Therefore, the results have not been announced. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the 4th
Respondent is the Chairman of the Municipality and he is not Municipal Councilor and the ballot paper was also sent to him and he also, in fact,
voted. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted (sic) in the capacity of Returning Officer conducted the election as per the provisions of
the Act and the Statute and there is no illegality in it.
Mr. M. Ravindran, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent, before adverting to the various arguments advanced by the
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the merits of the case would raise a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The
Learned Counsel would submit that once the notification for election is published, this Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in an election matter. Admittedly, in this case, the notification was issued on 20.11.2000 calling for nomination and as
contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, nominations were called for and two candidates filed their nominations and the ballot
papers were also sent to the electors on 28.11.2000 and the same have been received back and the counting was scheduled to take place on
6.12.2000 at 4.30 p.m. At this stage, the Petitioner has approached this Court on 5.12.2000 seeking for a direction to the Respondents 1 and 2
not to conduct the election for the post of Senate Member of Annamalai University from and out of the councilors of the 3rd Respondent in
pursuance of the 2nd Respondent''s election notice dated 20.11.2000 and for other prayer. The Learned Senior Counsel, in this context would
rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 616 (S.T. Muthusamy v. K. Natarajan and Ors.). wherein the Supreme
Court was considering the question of the powers of the High Court under writ jurisdiction to interfere in the election process. Therefore, the
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
In view of the rival submissions of the respective counsel, before going into the merits of the case as well as the legal submissions raised by the
Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to first consider the preliminary objection raised by the Learned Senior Counsel
for the 5th Respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Admittedly, in this case a notification calling for nomination from eligible
candidates was issued on 20.11.2000 and a date was also fixed for declaration of election results on 6.12.2000. Based upon the above
notification, nominations were also received from these candidates and finally two candidates alone contested. The ballot papers were also sent to
the electors on 28.11.2000 itself by registered post with acknowledgement due and the ballot papers were also received from electors up to
4.00.p.m. on 6.12.2000 and the counting was fixed at 4.30 p.m. on 6.12.2000. The writ petition was filed on 5.12.2000. The prayer in the writ
petition is more relevant while deciding the preliminary issue which reads as follows:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other writ, order or direction in the said nature directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to forebear from conducting the election for the post of Senate
Member of the Annamalai University from out of the constituency of Municipal Councilors of the 3rd Respondent in pursuance of the 2nd
Respondent''s election notice dated 20.11.2000. In Al/8001/97 and declaring the results of the said election and to conduct the said election afresh
in accordance with the Annamalai University, Act 1928 without in any manner distinctively marking the ballot papers and without including the 4th
Respondent in the constituency.
A reading of the prayer would indicate that the direction sought by the Petitioner is to forbear the Respondents 1 and 2 from conducting the
election to the post of Senate Member of the University pursuant to the election notice dated 20.11.2000. It is well settled in law that in the
election matters, once a notification is issued, the Court cannot interfere in the election process by virtue of the powers conferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Others, "" has held that the writ petition is not a proper remedy when a person aggrieved by any irregularity in the conduct of the
election before the results of the election is declared. In the judgment reported in "" Nanhoo Mal and Others Vs. Hira Mal and Others, , the
Supreme Court following the judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, held that there is hardly
any room for Courts to entertain applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to elections. These judgments also have been
referred to by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgments reported in S.T. Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan and Others, "" wherein the Supreme
Court has held that exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of election is not proper as the
parties who are aggrieved by the results of the election can question the validity of the results of election. That apart, u/s 37 of the Annamalai
University Act if any dispute arises whether any person has been duly elected or nominated as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or
body of the University, the question shall be referred to the chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final. By virtue of the said section in the
event the Petitioner is aggrieved by the results of the election, there is an effective alternative remedy for the Petitioner to refer the same to the
chancellor for a decision. In view of the said effective remedy and also in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to the powers of
the High Court to interfere in the matter of election after the notification for election in issued, I do not find that the Petitioner can sustain this writ
petition seeking for a direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 forbearing the election as per the notification dated 20.11.2000 and also seeking for
injunction from declaring the results. Such a prayer, in the writ petition, cannot be entertained by this Court by virtue of the powers conferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable.
In view of the above finding, I do not consider it necessary to decide the other questions raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
on merits as well as on other legal points. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.
No. 29802 and 31768 of 2000 are closed.