Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- TamilNadu Panchayats Act, 1994 s. 205
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. But the local body elections were held on 19th and21st of October 2011. The petitioner contested once again for the post of President. Now the population of the village itself have affirmed the order of the Inspector of Panchayat and did not re-elect him.…
Judgment
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 11.11.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIANW.P.(MD)No.10132 of 2011andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Manivannan : Petitioner vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Local Administration and Rural Development, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector, Tirunelveli District.
The Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. : RespondentsWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in A6/2452/2007 dated 25.8.2011 and the notification issued by the second respondent in the Tamil Nadu GovernmentGazette dated 26.8.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to function as President of Kulasekarampatty VillagePanchayat. For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Jayatram For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E RThe petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Inspector of Panchayats, removing the petitioner from the post of President of Kulasekarampatty Panchayat Union, under Section 205 of the TamilNadu Panchayats Act, 1994.2. Heard Mr.Arun Jayatram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The impugned order is dated 25.8.2011. At the time of admission of the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Consequently the petitioner continued in the post of President.
But the local body elections were held on 19th and21st of October 2011. The petitioner contested once again for the post of President. Now the population of the village itself have affirmed the order of the Inspector of Panchayat and did not re-elect him. In view of the above fact, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and hence it is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub-Assistant Registrar To1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Local Administration and Rural Development, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District+One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.39287Svnrl/5c – 28.11.2011 W.P.(MD)No.10132 of 201111.11.2011
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.