Madras High Court
M.Bhavani vs The Tamil Nadu State Election ... on 1 October, 2021
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.14879 of 2021
M.Bhavani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 106.
2.The District Election Officer/
The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Returning Officer/
Block Development Officer,
Valliyoor Panchayat Union,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Assistant Returning Officer,
A.Thirumalapuram Village Panchayat Election,
Valliyoor Panchayat Union,
Tirunelveli District.
5.Kannan
6.Indira ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4
to accept the petitioner's nomination and permit her to contest the
election for the post of President of A.Thirumalpuram Village
Panchayat to be held on 09.10.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian
For R - 1 : Mr.B.Saravanan
For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ
of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to accept her
nomination and permit her to contest the election for the post of
President of A.Thirumalpuram Village Panchayat to be held on
09.10.2021.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the nomination submitted
by the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the authorities and
therefore, the authorities should be directed to accept her
nomination and publish her name as the eligible candidate for the
election.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
3.Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Standing Counsel taking notice for
the first respondent submitted that the prayer sought for in the Writ
Petition itself is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner
has not challenged the eligible candidates list published on
25.09.2021.
4.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader taking
notice for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the authorities,
after scrutinizing the nomination form, have published the eligible
candidates list on 25.09.2021. Further, the learned Government
Pleader submitted that since the petitioner has not given the correct
detail in the nomination form, her application was rejected by the
authorities.
5.The learned Government Pleader in support of his
contention relied on the unreported Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 24.08.2018 made in Civil Appeal
No.8515 of 2018 (West Bengal State Election Commission
and others Vs. Communist Party of India and others), wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.25 to 27 as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
'25.Any dispute regarding the election has to be
pursued in the manner which is provided in Part VII of the
Panchayat Election Act.
Under Section 79(1):
“79. (1) If any dispute arises as to the validity of an
election under this Act, any person entitled to vote at such
election may, within thirty days after the date of declaration
of the results of such election, file a petition, calling in
question such election on one or more of the grounds
specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 93 and Section 94
(a) before the Civil Judge having jurisdiction where
such election is in respect of a Gram Panchayat or a
Panchayat Samiti, (b) before the District Judge of the
District, where such election is in respect of a Zilla Parishad
or the Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad. Section 80 stipulates
that no election to a panchayat shall be called into question
except by an election petition presented in accordance with
Part VII. In fact, Section 84 (1) also stipulates that the
Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not
comply with the provisions of Section 79 or Section 80.
26.The Panchayat Elections Act is a complete code in
regard to the conduct of the poll and for the resolution of
disputes concerning the validity of the election. Article
243K entrusts the superintendence, direction and control
over the conduct of all elections to the panchayats in the
State Election Commission. Clause (b) of Article 243 O
stipulates thus: “243-O. Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution (b) no election to any Panchayat shall
be called in question except by an election petition
presented to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of
a State. 27.There is merit in the submission that the
discipline which is mandated by the provisions of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
Constitution and enforced by the enabling state law on the
subject must be maintained. Any dispute in regard to the
validity of the election has to be espoused by adopting a
remedy which is known to law namely through an election
petition. It is at the trial of an election petition that factual
disputes can be resolved on the basis of evidence. This
principle has been consistently adhered to in decisions of
this Court. In Boddula Krishnaiah (supra), a three Judge
bench, adverted to the decisions of the Constitution Bench
in NP Ponnuswami v Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency (1952 SCE 218) and in Lakshmi Charan Sen v
AKM Hassan Uzzaman (1985) 4 SCC 689. After referring to
Ponnuswamy, it was observed: In NP Ponnuswamy v
Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency a Constitution
Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the
important functions which the legislatures have to perform
in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be
a matter of first importance that elections should be
concluded as early as possible according to time schedule
and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of
elections should be postponed till after the elections are
over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly
retarded or protracted. In conformity with the principle, the
scheme of the election law is that no significance should be
attached to anything which does not affect the ‘election’;
and if any irregularities are committed, while it is in
progress and they belong to the category or class which
under the law by which elections are governed, would have
the effect of vitiating the ‘election; and enable the person
affected to call it in question, they should be brought up
before a special tribunal by means of an election petition
and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court
while the election is in progress. The binding principle must
be followed.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
6.On a perusal and consideration of the materials available on
record and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, it could be seen that the respondents have already
scrutinized the applications and also published the list of eligible
candidates for the forthcoming Local Body Elections. Under Article
243 (O) of the Constitution of India, no election to any Panchayats
shall be called in question except by an election petition presented
to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under
any law made by the Legislature of a State.
7.Further under Section 259(c) & (d) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994, if the District Judge is of the opinion that the
result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate has
been materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of
any nomination may declare the election to be void.
8.The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's
case. In these circumstances, for the reasons stated above, we are
not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
9.Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the respondents have not furnished the
order of rejection to the petitioner.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that in the event of the petitioner filing an application
seeking for a copy of the order, the same would be furnished to the
petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
01.10.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ps
To
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 106.
2.The District Election Officer/
The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Returning Officer/
Block Development Officer,
Valliyoor Panchayat Union,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Assistant Returning Officer,
A.Thirumalapuram Village Panchayat Election,
Valliyoor Panchayat Union,
Tirunelveli District.
W.P(MD)No.18011 of 2021
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
