Madras High Court
Latha vs The Tamil Nadu State Election ... on 8 October, 2021
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021 and
C.M.P.Nos.17063 & 17068 of 2021
W.A.No.2608 of 2021
Latha .. Appellant
vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Opp. to CMBT, Arumbakkam,
Chennai – 600 106.
2.The District Election Officer,
The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Assistant Project Officer,
(Housing & Health)–cum-Returning Officer,
Panchayat Union Ward Council Elections,
Thandarampattu Block,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thandarampattu Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Collectorate,
Thiruvannamalai District.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Annasalai NH-66,
Thiruvannamalai – 606 601.
7.The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Rep. By its Chairman and Secretary,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
8.G.Parimala
Thandarampet Panchayat Union,
Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
W.A.No.2609 of 2021
Selvi .. Appellant
vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
Inner Ring Road,
Jai Nagar,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 106.
2.The District Election Officer/District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Collectorate,
Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai – 606 604.
3.The Returning Officer,
Thandarampattu Panchayat Union,
Assistant Project Officer (Housing & Sanitation),
District Rural Development Agency,
Thiruvannamalai.
4.The State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
5.G.Parimala
Vanapuram Village,
Thandarampattu Block,
Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.5884 & 5617 of 2020 dated 14.09.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian,
in both W.As. Senior Counel
for Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
For RR-1, 2 & 4 to 7 : Mr.D.Ravichander
in W.A.No.2608/2021 State Government Counsel
For RR-1, 2 & 4
in W.A.No.2609/2021
For R3 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
in both W.As. Government Counsel
COMMON JUDGMENT
(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
As no adverse order is going to be passed against the private
respondent, notice is dispensed with. These Writ Appeals have been
filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 made in W.P.Nos.5884
and 5617 of 2020.
2. The appellant in W.A.No.2608 of 2021 has filed
W.P.No.5884 of 2020, challenging the notice dated 25.02.2020 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
sought for a direction to the third respondent/third appellant herein to
conduct indirect elections for Thandarampattu Union as per the
mandatory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and
Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995.
3. The appellant in W.A. No.2609 of 2021 has filed
W.P.No.5617 of 2020, challenging the notification dated 24.02.2020
and sought for a direction to the fourth respondent/The State Level
Scrutiny Committee to expedite the verification process of the private
respondent G.Parimala's Community status, etc.
4. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitions
together, held that W.P.No.5617 of 2020 is not sustainable, since the
writ petitioner is seeking for the postponement of the election till the
final report is given by the Scrutiny Committee. So far as W.P.No.5884
of 2020 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has stated that, as long
as the Community Certificate of G.Parimala, who is 8th respondent in
W.A. No.2608/2021 and 5th respondent in W.A. No.2609/2021, is
cancelled in the manner known to law, it is deemed to be valid for all
purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Government Counsels appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 7.
6. Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant in both the appeals, pointed out that the Revenue
Divisional Officer has already conducted a preliminary enquiry and had
recommended cancellation of the community certificate of the said
G.Parimala as she does not belong to 'Hindu Kuruman'. Now the writ
appellants as well as the said G.Parimala are elected members. It is the
indirect election for selecting the Chairman and Vice Chairman, which is
in question.
7. It is the further contention of the appellant that the
respondent-G.Parimala does not belong to S.T. Community and her
selection itself would become invalid in the event the State Level
Scrutiny Committee upholds the recommendation of the RDO that she
does not belong to the S.T. Community. It is also unfortunate that after
the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2015,
recommending cancellation of her community certificate, there is no
progress till today and it is the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which
has to take a call on the same. It is also unfortunate that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
has to seek for cancellation of the election, because one of the
members, does not belong to the S.T. Community. Even presuming
that the respondent-G.Pramila does not belong to the S.T. Community
and she is contesting in the election, she will be disqualified, as per
Section 38(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The said
provision reads thus:
"38. Disqualification of members:
(3) Subject to the provisions of Section 41, a member shall
cease to hold office as such, if he--
(e) is found that he does not belong to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but has been elected from the
seat reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;"
8. In view of the above, in the event the said G.Parimala
found to be not belonging to S.T. Community, she will automatically be
disqualified. In the light of the above, we only modify the order of the
learned Single Judge as follows:
(1) The indirect election, as scheduled, can go on;
(2) The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to consider the
community status of the respondent-G.Parimala, after affording
her an opportunity of personal hearing and permitting her to
furnish relevant documents and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, she found to be
not belong to S.T. Community, she will be bound by Section 38 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
8. With the above directions, these writ appeals are disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
08.10.2021
rsi
To
1.The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner,
No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Opp. to CMBT, Arumbakkam,
Chennai – 600 106.
2.The District Election Officer,
The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Assistant Project Officer,
(Housing & Health)–cum-Returning Officer,
Panchayat Union Ward Council Elections,
Thandarampattu Block,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Thandarampattu Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Collectorate,
Thiruvannamalai District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Annasalai NH-66,
Thiruvannamalai – 606 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
7.The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Rep. By its Chairman and Secretary,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rsi
W.A.Nos.2608 & 2609 of 2021
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
