Daily Archive: December 30, 2019

Local body election case full order video camara case v Parthiban judge order PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to count the votes of one Panchayat out of 14 Panchayats at one time for the Ward No.19 of Salem District Panchayat, to declare the results of the said Panchayats and thereafter to start the counting of votes of other Panchayats similarly and consequently direct the respondents to permit a Committee of persons including the petitioner, the candidates for Panchayat Union Ward members, Salem District, the candidates for the Village Panchayat President, the candidates for the Village Panchayat Ward Member, the election agent and the counting agents to be present for the opening of the ballot boxes, the counting of votes and the declaration of results. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents :Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr.B.Neduncheziyan for RR1 Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, AAG assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayan, GP and Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundaram, Spl.GP for R2 Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, AAG for Mr.E.Balamurugan for RR3 & 4 COMMON ORDER

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA WP.No.35834/2019 & WMP.No.36739/2019 Senthil Arumugam .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Chief Election Commissioner Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, Vadapalani, Chennai – 106.WP.No.35834/2019 it nowhere prohibits the election being conducted, more particularly, in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India referred to above. That apart, there is a Notification dated 02.12.2019 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra Oridnary No.455 [Part VI, Section – 2] dated 09.12.2019 and this fact, having been brought to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, taking note of the above did not deem it fit to keep at bay the declaration of the final results. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance after declaration of the results, it is open to him to challenge the same and this Court is of the considered view that it is too premature for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking direction not to declare the results of the election. (8)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself, granting liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the results of the elections being conducted, if it is available to him under law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.V.N., J.] [P.T.A., J.] 30.12.2019

[12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on  the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and  Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary  Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government  And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover  ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019.  Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍

[12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes in local bodies elections through out tamilnadu and a direction to comply with rules 60 to 69 of TN Panchayat Elections Rules 1996, based on the representations sent by the opposition parties to State Election Commission. All the writ petition came up for hearing before the Honble Vacation Bench of Madras High Court today. The Opposition Parties were represented by various counsels under the lead of Senior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango, on behalf of DMK’s party functionary Mr.R.S.Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha and Ms.S.Deepika, Counsel representing VCK Legal wing Secretary Mr.D.Parventhan. whereas State Election Commission was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.Ar.L.Sunderesan. it was represented by State Election Commission that when they are strictly following the chapter VI (Rules 60 to 69) of TN Panchayat Rules, there is no question of directing them by way of mandamus sought by the Petitioners. In the course of arguement and in the Counter Affidavit filed by Commission, it was informed that the Returning Officers are instructed to install CCTV Cameras in counting booths and the coverage would not be only focussing the ballot papers which was vehemently opposed by all the Petitioner Counsels and district wise malpractices and incidents were reported before the court. Quiet interestingly, the State Government And Election Commission submitted that the Writ Petitions are merely based and presumptions and apprehensions and no past history was recorded. Whereas the same was countered by Petitioner’s Counsel that their (commission) own circular admitted about the past history of malpractices and booth capturing etc., Ultimately the Election Commission conceded to the fact that they would delete the line mentioning about the ” recording would not cover ballot papers ” in their circular dated 13.12.2019. Recording their ( State Election Commission) submission that the counting process would be videographed in the presence of candidates and their agents, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. [12/30, 16:26] Sekarreporter 1: 👍

[12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1211605395753463809?s=08 [12/30, 16:40] Sekarreporter 1: [12/30, 16:25] Karventhan Vidurhaisiruthai: The Opposition parties DMK, VCK and others filed a batch of writ petitions seeking for video coverage of counting of votes...

HC strikes down discharge order against trainee constableJustice M S Ramesh observed that though the authorities claim that the petitioner was absent without prior permission, the petitioner had produced necessary medical records during the relevant period. The judge added that details with regard to submission of medical records under RTI Act, the authorities in a letter dated January 18, 2016, has confirmed they received the medical certificates from the petitioner.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com