Geetha v. Karpagavalli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (MD).No.2017 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 Geetha : Petitioner/ 1st Respondent Vs.

1. Karpagavalli

2. Kuruvammal

3. Seyyathu Raviyal

4. The Election Officer/ Block Development Officer Kadaladi Union Office, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District

5. The District Election Officer / The District Collector Collectorate, Ramanathapuram Ramanathapuram District : Respondent/Petitioner/ Respondents 2 to 5 Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.08.2015 made in Election O.P. No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy For Respondent :Mr. A. Arumugam for R1 (Caveator) : Mr. G. Muthu Kannan for R4&R5 Government Advocate : No Appearance for R2 & R3

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 25.08.2015 made in Election O.P. No.12 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. The aforesaid Election OP was filed by first respondent herein viz., Karapagavalli before the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram against the revision petitioner, who was elected as a President in the Kadaladi, Keelachirupothu Village Village and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the said election was held on 19.10.2011. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram has allowed the said OP and held that the Panchayat Election dated 19.10.2011 is null and void by virtue of which the revision petitioner/first respondent was disallowed to hold the post of the President of Kadaladi, Keelachirupothu Village. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.08.2015, passed in Election O.P.No.12 of 2011, the revision petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. According to the petitioner, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider the witness of PW.1, who is the husband of first respondent and the first respondent did not prove the corrupt practice which provides under Section 259(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchyat Act 1994. These are all the facts has not been considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a limited scope of prayer to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Further without going in to the merits of the case it has been rightly pointed by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the tenure of the elected President was expired on 21.10.2016. Therefore, the tenure of the period is over is no order is required in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submitted that period of the local body election was over and another notification was also issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for conducting Panchayat Election appointing Special Officer for all the local bodies.

5. In view of the above said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the election period has already expired on 21.10.2016, the Civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TRP To The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. +1 cc to MR.T.LAJAPATHIROY, Advocate SR.No.69864 CRP (MD).No.2017 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.11.2016 SMA/PM-PN/22.03.2017:2P/3C