COMPILATION OF IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
Casual Elections 2014 - WP No.25123/2014 Judgment
Local Body Elections (Ordinary) 2011 Judgment - Chennai Corporation
Local Body Elections (Ordinary) 2006 Judgment - Chennai Corporation

S.No. Case No. / Date of Judgment Gist of Cases
Prayer Judgment

1.

W.P.No.24969/11 and M.P.No.1/11 filed by G. Kumar Vs. Chief State Election Commissioner, Order dated 28.10.2011, High Court of Madras.

 To direct the respondents to conduct the Chairman Election of Chengam Panchayat Union after conducting 18th ward member election wherein the elected ward member expired. The Commission having not bound to wait for the election of ward member, the election of Chairman may go.

2.

W.P.(MD)Nos. 12905 and 13322/11 and M.P.(MD) Nos, 1,2,1,2 and 3/11 filed by P. Janaki Palanichamy Vs. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission Order dated 29.11.2011, Madras High Court of Madurai Bench.

 Whether the person elected directly by the electorate as the President of Village Panchayat is entitled cast his vote in the election to the post of Vice President of Village Panchayat or not. The Village Panchayat President can vote in the election of Vice President.

3.

W.P.No.26160/2011 and M.P.No.1/11, filed by S.P. Sekar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner Order dated.12.11.2011, High Court of Madras.

 As one councilor poured ink in a ballot paper in the election of Chairman of Nanagavalli Panchayat Union declaration of result of withheld. To direct to declare the petitioner as successful candidate. W.P. was dismissed as it has no merits.

4.

W.P.(MD) No.11850/11 and M.P.(MD) No.1/2011 filed by R. Mayilammal, Theni District Order dated 14.10.2011, Madras High Court of Madurai Bench.

 Challenging of acceptance of nomination of 5th respondent who was convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- Article 243ZG and 243O of Constitution of India bar the interference of the court in electoral matters. On the eve of polling the W.P.is not maintainable. The W.P. is liable to dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to file EOP.

5.

W.P.Nos.24078/11,24132 and 24158, 24187, 24768, 24769/11 and Contempt Petition No.377/12 and 1664/2011, filed by G.Poonkunran and 6 others Order dated 26.04.2012, High Court of Madras.

 Direction for proving video recording etc. was not complied with. The Commission and the election machinery have taken every possible efforts and made all necessary arrangement to provide video recording etc., as per the direction of the division bench. Hence the respondent not liable for Contempt - W.P. and Contempt petitions are dismissed with the following observations:-

(a) “No such violent incidents (as in 2006)” were reported during the elections on 17.10.2011.
(b) “Not even a stray incident with reference to a particular polling station was mentioned in the affidavit” filed by any of the petitioners.
(c) “The allegations (...............about booth capturing or bogus votes......) are bald and vague.”
(d) “There are no materials to provide large scale violations, poll related irregularities, booth capturing, rigging, bogus voting or any other exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to set aside the election by entertaining the writ petitions.”
(e) “The directions of the Court dated 14.10.2011 to provide video recording in all polling booths had been substantially complied with, barring only a few polling booths even where random video recording had been done”.
(f) “There are no materials to suggest that the failure to provide video recording in about 542 polling booths out of 4875 polling booths had materially affected the election of the returned candidates warranting the Hon’ble High Court to interfere with the local body elections”.
(g) “The respondents have taken every possible effect and made all the necessary arrangements to comply with all the directions issued by the Division Bench on 14.10.2011 in W.P.No. 22859/2011 etc., and such, they are not liable for contempt”

6.

W.P.Nos. ,17248, 17685, 17886, 17893, 17884 and 18095/2001 filed by Janatha Party, Congress Janayaha Peravai, Puthiya Thamizhagam and others, Order dated 1.10.2001, High Court of Madras.

 Preference to be given to candidates belonging to registered political parties in the matter of allotment of free symbols over independence candidate in the Local Body Elections. Registered Political Parties shall be given preference over the independence candidate in the allotment of symbols from the free symbols.

7.

W.P.No.25032/2011, filed by Thiru.S. Sadhanandhan, Tiruppur District, Order dt. 06.01.2012, High Court of Madras.

 The Petitioner elected as ward member by first lot. The Returning Officer has conducted 2nd lot and declares another person for the said ward member. The petitioner elected from first lot requested to swear in him as a member. The 2nd lot can not be recognized and ordered to conduct fresh lot by a newly appointed Returning Officer.

8.

W.P.No.23922/2012, filed by Thiru.L.K. Venkat, Chennai Order dated 23.01.2012 High Court of Madras.

 To declare Section 37 (3) (a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 as unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (A person shall be disqualified for election as member, if at the last date for filling of nomination or at the date of election he is- (a) of unsound mind, or a deaf –mute ;) W.P. is dismissed as appraised amendment bill is pending – As per amendment to the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994 issued vide Act 44/2012, the deaf mute can be contested in Local Body Elections.

9.

W.P.No.23054/2011,Filed by R. Janaki, Tiruvannamalai Order dated 11.10.2011 Madras High Court.

 To permit to contest in the Local Body Elections for the post President, Melpatchar Village Panchayat, Thandarampattu Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai which is reserved for ST. The petitioner has not having any community certificate issued by the Competent Authority to establish her status as a ST candidate. Hence the rejection of nomination paper is just and proper W.P. is dismissed.

10.

W.P.(MD) No.6869/2012 filed by M. Poominathan Order dated 24.08.2012 High Court of Madurai Bench.

 The petitioner requested to allow him to continue as Vice President of T.Punavasal Panchayat as he was elected unanimously without Coram in election meeting - State Election Commission intervened in this stage – Challenged. The contention of the W.P. was rejected and W.P is dismissed.

11.

E.O.P.No.2/2011 filed by P.Pandiayaraj Judgment dt.13.03.2014 Principal District Court, Theni.

 The name of the 9th respondent finds in two places – Nomination ought not to have been accepted and not entitled to contest – election should be declared null and void. As per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras rendered in A.Shandha – vs. Kavitha & 4 others 2011 (3) CTC P285 it has been clearly laid down that if a persons name finds a place in more than one constituency, it will not disentitle to contest the election – EOP – dismissed.