Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3149 (MAD)

S. Ravi, Kancheepuram District v. Srinivasan

2012-07-19

V.DHANAPALAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard Dr.R. Sampath Kumar learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Ms. T. Hemalatha learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; Mr. B. Nedunchizhian learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission and Mr.T.Jayaramaraj learned Government Advocate appeairng for the 9th respondent. Already, Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have remained exparte before the lower Court and hence, the revision petitioner is not seeking any relief as against these respondents as indicated in the cause title itself. 2. The revision petitioner, who has contested the election for the post of Panchayat President of Vallipuram Village, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, has filed an election petition in Elec. O.P. No: 236 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu District, which is the Election Tribunal, against respondents 1 to 5. The revision petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the District Court at Chengalpattu to expediate the trial and dispose of the Election O.P. No: 236 of 2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who is the successful candidate, does not oppose the prayer for early disposal of the election O.P. The respective counsel appearing for the official respondents namely the Returning Officer, State Election Commission and the Collector of Kancheepuram District, also does not oppose such prayer of the revision petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, by pointing out the mandatory requirement under Section 258 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, which inter alia provides that every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the District Judge for trial, states that the petitioner presented the election petition on 02.11.2011 and that pleadings are also complete. Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as also the official respondents does not dispute the fact that the O.P. is ripe for trial. 5. The only prayer made in this Civil Revision Petition is to issue a direction to the District Judge, Chengalpattu, to expediate the trial in the Election O.P. filed by the revision petitioner. Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as also the official respondents does not dispute the fact that the O.P. is ripe for trial. 5. The only prayer made in this Civil Revision Petition is to issue a direction to the District Judge, Chengalpattu, to expediate the trial in the Election O.P. filed by the revision petitioner. The mandatory provision namely Section 258 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act clearly provides that every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the election petiiton is presented to the District Judge for trial. If that is so, the prayer of the revision petitioner has to be accepted. 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the District Court at Chengalpattu to expediate the trial in Election O.P. No: 236 of 2011 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible however, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to the costs.