P.HefsibaW/o.Late S.Selvaraj Pillaiyar v. The State Of TamilnaduRep By Its Secretary To The Government, Cooperation, Food
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
WP No. 13799 of 2013__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 13799 of 2013P.HefsibaW/o.Late S.Selvaraj Pillaiyar, No.115-e, Kakkindi Pidari, Erumad, Konnachal P.O., Gudalur, Nilgiris 643 239..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The State Of TamilnaduRep By Its Secretary To The Government, Cooperation, Food Consumer Protection (cj1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 92. The Election CommissionTamilnadu Cooperative Societies, Fort St.George, Chennai 93. The State Election Officer(indl. Coop. Societies (tea Factory) Taico Bank Complex, Mandaveli, Chennai 284. The District Election Officer(j.D (tea), Industries And Commerce, Incoserve Complex, Coonoor 1, Nilgiris5.The Election OfficerFrontier Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory (ind 1415) Erumad, Konnachal P.O. Nilgiris, Tamilnadu 643 2396.The Frontier IndustrialCooperative Tea Factory, Erumad, Konnachal P.O. Nilgiris, Tamilnadu 643 239, Rep By Sp.
Officer7.AnnammaW/o.George, Kulal, Konnachal, Gudalur, Nilgiris https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 13799 of 2013__________Page2 of 58. Vasantha SureshW/o.Suresh, Paramula, Kaiunni, Gudalur, Nilgiris9.P.M.RaghavanS/o.Mahavan, Attichal, Munadu, Gudalur, Nilgiris10.SivarajS/o.Marimuthu, Maanur, Erumad Village, Gudalur, Nilgiris11.P.M.BabyS/o.Mathew, Karakolli, Kaiyunni, Gudalur, Nilgiris12.P.P.BobanS/o.Pailey, Kulal, Konnachal, Erumad, Gudalur, Nilgiris13.GubendranS/o.Periaswamy, Maanur, Erumad, Gudalur, Nilgiris14.Mohammad.M.S/o.Aliyar, Maradi, Panchira, Konnachal, Gudalur, Nilgiris..Respondent(s)Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the entire election process of the 6th respondents board of directors pursuant to the election programme dated 4.3.2013 is vitiated and the alleged election of respondent Nos.
Operative part
7 to 14 to the 6th respondents Board of Directors is non-est ad invalid in law in the interests of justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 13799 of 2013__________Page3 of 5For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.F..ManavalanFor Respondent(s):Ms.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Special Government Pleader for R1Ms.P,Rajalakshmi for R5OrderThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the Writ Petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication needs to be made in respect of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 12-03-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSKTo1.The Secretary To The Government, The State Of Tamilnadu, Cooperation, Food Consumer Protection (cj1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.2.The Election CommissionTamilnadu Cooperative Societies, Fort St.George, Chennai 9. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
13799 of 2013__________Page4 of 53. The State Election Officer(indl. Coop. Societies (tea Factory) Taico Bank Complex, Mandaveli, Chennai 284. The District Election Officer(j.D (tea), Industries And Commerce, Incoserve Complex, Coonoor 1, Nilgiris5.The Election OfficerFrontier Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory (ind 1415) Erumad, Konnachal P.O. Nilgiris, Tamilnadu 643 239. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 13799 of 2013__________Page5 of 5M.DHANDAPANI J.skWP No. 13799 of 201312-03-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.