Cj spj local body election order rules upheld The question as to whether there can be an alternative method to resolve the dispute is for the legislature to decide and not for the Court to suggest.

[2/15, 11:16] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.3216 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.02.2020
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.3216 of 2020
K.Devadass .. Petitioner
Vs
1 State of Tamilnadu
Rep by the Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.
2 The State Election Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State election Commission
Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Jai Nagar, Koyambedu
Chennai – 600 106.
3 The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai.
4 The Returning Officer /
Block Development Officer
Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union
Tiruvannamalai – 606 601.
5 M.Kalaivani .. Respondents

Page 1 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
[2/15, 11:17] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.3216 of 2020
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of Declaration, Declaring that Rule 67(1)(c) of the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 is null and void and
consequently the election of the fifth respondent as the President of
Adaiyur Village Panchayat, Tiruvannamalai – 606 604 declared under
the said Rule on 2.1.2020 is also null and void.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Government Pleader
for respondents 1, 3 and 4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon’ble Chief Justice)
Can there be a legally and constitutionally sustainable law to
select one out of two, who have been equally chosen by popular
will, through a draw of lot is the issue raised in this petition where
the relief sought is to declare Rule 67(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 (for brevity, “the 1995 Rules”)
as invalid and ultra vires, as it is founded on an irrational logic of
luck, being opposed to the democratic principles of the very rule

Page 2 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
[2/15, 11:17] Sekarreporter: W.P.No.3216 of 2020
In the instant case, the petitioner himself took a chance of
facing the draw of lots and having failed to secure the lot in his
favour, has now challenged the very Rule that provides for drawing
of lots. This challenge has been raised after elections. It could
have given rise to an election dispute to be raised before an
appropriate forum, but since the vires of the Rule itself has been
questioned and that was the only challenge raised, we entertained
the writ petition and for the reasons given herein above, we find no
merit in the contention that Rule 67(1)(c) read with Rule 67(2)(c)
of the 1995 Rules is ultra vires either to the provisions of the Act or
to the democratic principles of the holding of an election by exercise
of right of franchise or even ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
The question as to whether there can be an alternative
method to resolve the dispute is for the legislature to decide and
not for the Court to suggest.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Page 39 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME