P. SOODAMANI Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the legal issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical, at the request made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, all these writ petitions were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. With the consent of both parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) ALL the three petitioners filed nominations for election to the post of Councilor of the Wards in the respondent local bodies. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 15151 of 2014 filed nomination for being elected to the post of the Seventh Ward Member of Muthukulathur Union, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 15290 of 2014 filed nomination for the post of the Ninth Ward Member of Dindigul Municipal Corporation. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 14999 of 2013 filed nomination for the post of 85th Ward Member of Madurai City Municipal Corporation.

(3.) MR . G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and the democratic process has been subverted. It is submitted that Article 243 -O of the Constitution of India will not operate as a bar for entertaining a writ petition at all times and the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, reported in : (2005) 8 SCC 383, held that the said provision is not per se bar for judicial review, which is the basic structure of the constitution and there may be some cases, where a writ petition could be entertained. In support of such contention, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, reported in : (1999) 4 SCC 526. Further, it is submitted that when the action of the authorities subverted the constitutional purpose, it should be treated as fraud on constitution. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & amp; ST, reported in : (2005) 8 SCC 283.