G.Mari Muthu v. The Registrar Of Chennai North District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 17.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY G. MARI MUTHU, S/o. Gubendran, President Periya Ernavoor Grama Seva Sangam, Registration No. 288/2022, No. 26/54, Thiruveethiyamman Temple Street, Ernavoor, Kathivakkam, Chennai - 600 057.

... Petitioner /versus/

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CHENNAI NORTH DISTRICT, North Chennai District Registrar's Office, Chennai North, Kuralagam, Chennai - 600 108.

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M -5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai - 600057.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 and 22.02.2025 to directing respondents to ensure that any election to the post of President of the association is conducted only after complying with the prescribed procedure as per the association's rules.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Prasanna Kumar.

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sasi Kumar, Government Advocate, for R1 : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for R2

O R D E R

The writ petition is filed with a prayer to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 and 22.02.2025 directing the respondents to ensure that any election to the post of the President of the election is conducted only after complying with the prescribed procedure.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.R.Sasikumar, Learned Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the first respondent would submit that they do not have the authority to interdict in the election process. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved of some procedure, it is for the petitioner either approach the civil court to prevent the election before the notification of the election or challenge the election in a manner known to law.

3. Dr.C.E.Pratap, Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf

the second respondent would submit that the police will not be the appropriate authority to ensure compliance of procedure etc.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

5. As rightly contended by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, if the petitioner is aggrieved of any procedure, it will be open for him to ultimately challenge the outcome of the election in the manner known to law. As far as the second respondent is concerned, for due conduct of election if there is any apprehension as to the law and order or other problems, due protection can be granted.

6. With the above said observations and liberties, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 17.03.2025 : No.

bsm To,

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CHENNAI NORTH DISTRICT, North Chennai District Registrar's Office,

Chennai North, Kuralagam, Chennai - 600 108.

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M -5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai - 600057.

3. The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

bsm 17.03.2025