Madras High CourtWP/12763/2016dismissed with cost

E.Murugan, v. The Chief Electoral Officer,

2016-04-18Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.04.2016 CORAM :

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P. No.12763 of 2016 E.Murugan .. Petitioner -vs1.The Chief Electoral Officer, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The District Election Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anna Salai, Thorapadi, Vellore Range, Vellore, Vellore District.

5.The District Superintendent of Police, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

6.The Assistant Returning Officer, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

7.Murugan, Police officer, SBCID, Kannamangalam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's

representations dated 23.01.2016 and 12.03.2016 and transfer the 7th respondent from Kannamangalam Police Station so as to ensure free and fair election in the Arani Assembly Constituency, Tiruvannamalai District, due to be held on 16.05.2016. For Petitioner :

M/s.Karthika Ashok for M/s.J.Gayathri Shivani For Respondents :

Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for M/s.G.R.Associates for RR 1, 3 and 6 :

Mr.S.T.S.Murthi, Govt. Pleader, assisted by Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, G.A.

For RR 2, 4, 5 and 7

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner claims to be a resident of Reddipalayam village and alleges that the seventh respondent has shown favouritism to the members and functionaries of PMK, a caste political outfit. It is the conjecture of the petitioner that the leadership of that party has a plan to create communal clashes and rioting and that the seventh respondent has managed to be in service for more than three years. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities regarding the seventh respondent on 23.01.2016 followed by a reminder on 12.03.2016, but to no avail.

2.It is trite to say that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission in such matters of supreme, which is a constitutional body. There is a limited scope of interference by the Court only in such eventualities as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 8 SCC 216. The judicial review is open on grounds of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power and mere bald assertions would not suffice.

3.Despite the settled legal positions, this is not the first petition which is being filed seeking different kinds of directions against the Election Commission based on the own surmises and conjectures of the individual voter. We do believe that this has no purpose other than endeavours of publicity. 4.This is a complete wastage of Court's time. We, thus, dismiss the petition with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

five thousand only) to be deposited within two (2) weeks with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1.The Chief Electoral Officer, Fort St. George, Chennai.