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.
by
Sekar Reporter
·
February 15, 2020
[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