Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 245 (MAD)

R. A. Krishnan v. The Election Commissioner

2002-03-18

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, V.BAKTHAVATSALU

body2002
Judgment :- B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a writ of quo warranto against the fifth respondent herein on the ground that he is not a Konda Reddy, as claimed and elected to the post of the President of Olagadam Town Panchayat situate within Ammapet Union, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District during the local body elections held in the month of October, 2001. 2. Olagadam Town Panchayat was a reserved constituency for the Scheduled Tribes. Fifth respondent filed his nomination as if belonged to Konda Reddy community, which is admittedly a scheduled tribe community. The election was held on 16.10.2001 and declaration was made on 25.10.2001. Contention is that the fifth respondent is not a Konda Reddy, but belongs to a forward class of Reddy community, and that he played fraud by claiming to be a Konda Reddy and filed a nomination. It is not disputed that an objection was raised to the nomination filed by the fifth respondent, but the said objection was overruled accepting the nomination of the fifth respondent, and the fifth respondent, after contest, was declared elected as the President of the above local body. 3. To the querry of the court that no election can be challenged excepting in the manner indicated in section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the election petition is not maintainable for the reason that the present issue does not come within the grounds enumerated for challenging the election. The grounds for declaring elections to be void are stated in section 259 of the Act and one of the grounds is the improper acceptance of any nomination. That is so clear from section 259(1)(d)(i) of the Act. As the objection is to the improper acceptance of the nomination of the fifth respondent, the election petition is clearly maintainable under the above provision. That is so clear from section 259(1)(d)(i) of the Act. As the objection is to the improper acceptance of the nomination of the fifth respondent, the election petition is clearly maintainable under the above provision. That apart, there is a residuary provision contained in sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 259 of the Act, which reads thus: “(iv) by the non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.” This residuary clause encompasses any of the defects or deficiencies in the process of election including the acceptance of nomination by a candidate, who is not entitled to contest for the reserved seat. 4. In view of what is stated supra, we hold that the contest with regard to the disentitlement of the fifth respondent for contesting the election to the post of the President of the above local body is one contemplated by section 259 of the Act and as such the election petition is maintainable under section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 12442/2002 is also dismissed.