K ADILAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a pathetic story where the democratic process of election was not only polluted and contaminated but some serious misconducts have been performed and yet this Court is not in a position to do anything in the matter. Before proceeding further, it must be mentioned that the main subject of this writ petition has become infructuous. The following facts will help us understand the situation.

(2.) There were going to be elections of Village Panchayat at Ranganathapuram village in Villupuram District. The second respondent herein, viz. the Block Development Officer, Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, was the Returning Officer. The elections were to be held on 16-10-2001 and they were accordingly held. We are concerned with the election process in respect of Ward No.3, which was a multi-member ward in the sense that from that ward, three members, viz. one lady scheduled caste candidate and two other scheduled caste candidates, were to be elected. Counting for this election was done on 21-10-2001 and to begin with, petitioners 1, 2 and 3 herein were declared to be the successful candidates and they were given the certificate of election under the signature of the second respondent, who was being assisted by the third respondent Assistant Returning Officer, Kallakurichi Panchayat Union. Naturally, the petitioners, who were given the certificate of election in their favour duly signed in Form 25, expected to be sworn in as the Members of the Panchayat Union, but to their utter dismay, they found that three other persons, viz. M/s. Amudha, Arunachalam and Natesan were invited to take oath in the first meeting of the council. The said three persons were stated to have taken oath in the first meeting of the council held on 25-10-2001 and were then inducted as the duly sworn members of the village panchayat. The petitioners straight away rushed before this Court by this writ petition, which seems to have been filed on 5-11-2001, i.e. about ten days after the concerned three persons having taken the oath. The petitioners have been studiously careful enough not to join the said three persons as parties to the writ petition. The petitioners came with a very innocuous prayer, which is couched in the following terms:

(3.) When the matter came up before this Court, this Court only issued rule on 9-11-2001. Along with the writ petition, a miscellaneous petition (WMP No.32024 of 2001) was also filed in which a direction was sought in the identical terms of the main prayer clause in the writ petition. The learned Judge, however, only issued a notice. Private notice was also allowed and all these orders came to be passed on the same day, i.e. on 9-11-2001. When the miscellaneous petition came up for further hearing on the question of interim relief on 8-1-2003, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the direction petition had been rendered infructuous and, therefore, that petition was disposed of. However, the hearing of the writ petition itself was expedited and that is how the matter has come before me now.