V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
S. Nagavalli – Appellant
Versus
Election Officer and Commissioner – Respondent
This civil revision petition arises out of the dismissal of an Election Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the election of the fourth respondent herein to the post of President of Kuravapulam Panchayat Union in Nagapattinam District.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.L.Mahendran, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. In the elections held on 15.10.2006 to the post of President of Kuravapulam Panchayat Union, the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein contested. The petitioner secured 1,041 votes and the fourth respondent secured 1,238 votes. Consequently, the fourth respondent was declared elected.
4. The election of the fourth respondent was challenged by the petitioner in Election O.P.No.81 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagapattinam under Section
258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on the short ground that the fourth respondent was born in Malaysia, educated in Malaysia and was settled in Malaysia and that therefore, she was not entitled to contest the elections. But the fourth respondent took a
Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali v B.D.Jatti [AIR 1971 SC 1348]
Hari Shanker Jain v Sonia Gandhi [2001 (8) SCC 233]
Sushil Kumar v Rakesh Kumar [2003 (8) SCC 673]
M.A.Muthiah Chettiar v Sa.Ganesan (AIR 1960 Mad. 85)
Poosariar Ekambaram Pillai v Visalakshi [1990 (2) MLJ 90]
Dr.Subramanian Swamy v T.T.V.Dinakaran [2004 (1) LW 712]
Hari Prasad Mulshankar Trivedi v V.B.Raju [1974 (3) SCC 415]
Durga Shankar Mehta v Thakur Raghuraj Singh [AIR 1954 SC 520]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.