ORDER : Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent culminating in its letter bearing number Lr. No. Rc.No.2408/2021/EG-B2 dated 17.09.2021 quash the same as illegal Arbitrary and consequently direct the Second Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners political party dated 14.09.2021 and allot a common Television Symbol to the petitioners political party. The petitioner, a registered unrecognised political party, complains of the refusal by the State Election Commission to allot the television symbol to the petitioner for the forthcoming elections to local bodies in the State. The petitioner refers to a publication issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission on March 23, 2020 pertaining to, inter alia, allotment of symbols. According to the amendment introduced by the said notification, paragraph 7(1)C of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2019 provides for a concession to candidates of unrecognised political parties which were earlier recognised parties. The petitioner relies on the following part of the provision: “7(1)C – Concession to candidates set up by registered (unrecognised) political parties and to unrecognised parties which were earlier recognised parties more than 6 years back. If a registered unrecognised political party has been allotted with a Common Symbol in the elections conducted by the Election Commission of India and not cancelled subsequently, the said registered unrecognised political party may request the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to continue to allot the same Common Symbol in the Local Body Elections conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission also subject to the following conditions: ...” 2. According to the petitioning political party, the several provisos to the substantive provision quoted above are not relevant for the present purpose as the provisos were not referred to in the State Election Commission dealing with the petitioner’s request or reconsidering its stand in such regard. The petitioner’s plea to obtain the common symbol of a television set was contained in its representation of September 14, 2021. This petition was instituted immediately upon receipt of the State Election Commission’s letter of September 17, 2021 by which it declined the common symbol to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s plea to obtain the common symbol of a television set was contained in its representation of September 14, 2021. This petition was instituted immediately upon receipt of the State Election Commission’s letter of September 17, 2021 by which it declined the common symbol to the petitioner. 3. When this petition was received by the court on September 24, 2021, a prima facie view was expressed upon noticing that the only reason given in the impugned letter of September 17, 2021 was the above-quoted paragraph 7(1)C of the relevant Order of 2019 along with the first proviso thereto. The following tentative view was expressed by this court in the order dated September 24, 2021: “4. If, what the petitioner suggests, is correct and it is the fact that the television symbol was issued by the ECI to the petitioner in course of the 2016 Assembly elections and the allotment of such symbol has not been subsequently cancelled or the same symbol allotted to any party by ECI for the 2019 Parliamentary elections or the 2021 Assembly elections, even the rule quoted by the State Election Commission may entitle the petitioner to retain the same symbol.” 4. It was with such observation that this court required the State Election Commission to reconsider its stand and indicate its considered view. The State Election Commission proceeded to reconsider the matter and, by its letter dated September 25, 2021, declined the petitioner's request for the television symbol all over again. In the relevant letter, the State Election Commission took into account a letter dated May 2, 2016 issued by the Election Commission of India. It is evident that 15 parties were named in such letter by the Commission and the common symbols allotted to such parties were indicated. However, the petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of 15 parties nor did the common symbol of television appear therein. The State Election Commission also refers to the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, on March 30, 2016 in connection with the election to the Assembly in the State. The letter refers to, inter alia, the petitioning party herein and it appears that such party had indicated that it would contest in 65 Assembly constituencies. The common symbol which was allotted to the petitioner was the television set. The letter refers to, inter alia, the petitioning party herein and it appears that such party had indicated that it would contest in 65 Assembly constituencies. The common symbol which was allotted to the petitioner was the television set. Paragraph 3 of the letter dated March 30, 2016 issued by the Election Commission provided as follows: “3. In the event of the above said parties failing to meet the requirement of the minimum number of candidates, as prescribed in Para 10B of the said Symbols Order, 1968, i.e., 5% of total number of Assembly Constituencies in the concerned State in case of Assembly election, then the said common symbol shall not be available to their candidates”. 5. The Election Commission clearly spelt out that if the petitioning political party did not contest in the requisite number of seats, “then the said common symbol shall not be available to their candidates”. In other words, the common symbol of television was provisionally allotted to the petitioning political party and the candidates to be put up at the 2016 Assembly elections subject to the condition in paragraph 10B of the Symbols Order, 1968. There is no dispute that the condition was not met. At least, on a direct query of the court to the petitioner, the response is that the allotment of the television symbol to the petitioning political party has not been cancelled. 6. Since no case has been made out that the consequence as indicated in the Election Commission’s letter of March 30, 2016 did not attach to the petitioning political party as a result of the petitioning political party not complying with paragraph 10B of the Symbols Order, 1968, the allotment of the television set as a common symbol is, in the circumstances, deemed to have been cancelled. That is the only effect of the condition imposed by the third paragraph of the letter dated March 30, 2016. It implied that if the condition was not met, the allotment of the symbol would stand cancelled without any further act or deed. It is in such circumstances that the Election Commission of India was not required to specifically write to the petitioning political party, cancelling the allotment of the television symbol. It implied that if the condition was not met, the allotment of the symbol would stand cancelled without any further act or deed. It is in such circumstances that the Election Commission of India was not required to specifically write to the petitioning political party, cancelling the allotment of the television symbol. However, the fact that the cancellation had taken effect is evident from the communication dated May 2, 2016 issued by the Election Commission and the petitioning political party's name not figuring among the 15 political parties named in the letter dated May 2, 2016. Incidentally, as noticed aforesaid, the common symbol of television also was not included in the table which formed a part of the letter dated May 2, 2016. 7. As a consequence, there is no merit in the petitioner's assertion that the petitioner is entitled to the common symbol of the television set for the forthcoming elections to local bodies in the State. In terms of paragraph 7(1)C of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2019, the television symbol that had been initially allotted in 2016 to the petitioner stood cancelled because of the petitioner's non-compliance with paragraph 10B of the Symbols Order of 1968. 8. WP No.20733 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. WMP Nos.21995 and 21996 of 2021 are closed.