M.SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to declare the petitioner as elected Vice-Chairman of Sedapatti Panchayat Union and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent in accordance with law. Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Sedapatti Panchayat Union, the fourth respondent in the said writ petition and quash the same.

(2.) Heard Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for R1 to R3. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011, and the fourth respondent was also called absent.

(3.) In both the writ petitions, the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 are the same authorities, however, the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011 is the rival candidate, Mrs. Santhakumari and the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 12133 of 2012 is the Commissioner, Sedapatti Panchayat Union. In the common order, for the sake of convenience, considering the earlier writ petition, the term writ petitioner and the fourth respondent respectively shall refer the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent in W.P. (MD). No. 14029 of 2011, unless the same is specifically stated.