R.M. KANDASAMY Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct election for the TP.SPL.29, Sivanmalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Sivanmalai, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District by providing police protection and under the supervision of the higher officials of the Revenue Department by taking Video Coverage for the dates from the date of nomination to counting date i.e., from 09.04.2018 to 17.04.2018.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member in TP.SPL.29, Sivanmalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Sivanmalai, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District. In view of issuance of Notification for conducting election for the above said Co-operative Society, fixing the nomination date on 09.04.2018, scrutiny date on 10.04.2018, publication of the eligible candidates list on 10.04.2018, withdrawal of nomination on 11.04.2018, publication of final list candidates on 11.04.2018, election polling date on 16.04.2018 and counting date on 17.04.2018, the petitioner and other candidates are going to file their nomination before the respondents on 09.04.2018. In the meanwhile, on 31.03.2018, the petitioner and other candidates approached the respondents and submitted written representation to conduct the election as per the procedures laid down under Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by providing necessary police protection. But no action has been taken. Therefore, they are advised to approach this Court and the above petition has been filed by the petitioner for the aforesaid prayer. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that if a direction is given to the respondents to give police protection, there will be a free and fair election conducted. In addition thereto, a further direction also should be given to take video coverage of the entire incident that is going to take place from the date of nomination till the date of declaration of results.

(3.) Opposing the above said prayer, Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. L.P. Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the request of the petitioner to give police protection is unacceptable, as there is no situation that is going to crop up and in the past also, there was no such incident that had taken place and the petitioner, entertaining some apprehension, has wrongly approached this Court. Therefore, there is no necessity arisen for passing any order for providing police protection. Moreover, the petitioner has also not placed on record any document to show that he deserves police protection from this Court.