Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 3514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
P. Balakrishnan - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 1820, 3443, 3448 of 2019, W.M.P. Nos. 2018, 3739, 3746, 3742, 3744, 34251, 36620 and 36625 of 2019
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C. Kanagaraj
For the Respondents: M.R. Gokulakrishnan, GA, V. Ayyadurai, SC for G. Sankaran, S. Karthikabalan and P. Wilson, SC for P. Wilson Associates
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 - Tamil Nadu Medical Council Rules - Election petition - Eligibility of contesting individuals - Pursuant to intent to conduct election to post of office bearers in Tamil Nadu Medical Council, W.P. was filed and this Court, vide order appointed a retired Judge of this Court as Administrator to conduct election - Accordingly, Judge-Administrator had conducted elections and after counting of votes, results were declared - However, after announcement of the results spate of allegations have been levelled against nominees and also act of Judge-Administrator and a series of writ petitions in W.P. were filed resulting in orders being passed to keep ballot boxes under lock and seal - Thereafter, direction was also issued to 2nd respondent to pass orders on representation filed by petitioners on allegations levelled not only against eligibility of contesting individuals but also against Administrator to effect that Rules with regard to postal ballots and their rejection was not followed and that Administrator had acted in an arbitrary manner - Whether both or equivalent or different and in case of it being not equivalent. Para 24.
Finding of the Court: When rule mandates a particular manner in which posting of votes is to be done and further same rule also mandates that any posting other than in manner that is mandated would be rejected, then it is incumbent on authority to adhere to rule and the mandate made under rule - In present case, it is admitted case of petitioners that postal votes numbering around 617, which were sent by Speed Post were rejected by Judge Administrator as impressible to be accepted for the reason that said votes have not been cast in the manner as mandated under Rule 9 - Said act of Judge-Administrator, by no means, could be termed to be bad or fallacious - In fact, appreciating Rule 9 in proper perspective, Judge-Administrator has rightly rejected postal ballots, which were not sent through registered post - Contention of petitioners that votes sent through speed post should also be deemed to be valid votes as speed post is also an equivalent form of posting as registered post, it wholly erroneous and said contention is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected - For the reasons aforesaid, contentions raised in writ petitions cannot be appreciated by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed - However, liberty is granted to petitioners to canvass factual points before trial court in the suit - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
M. Dhandapani, J.
1. All the three writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioner challenging the rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent in and by which the appeal, which was directed to be considered by this Court in accordance with law, was rejected and questioning the sustainability of the said order and also for re-conduct of fresh elections to the Tamil Nadu Medical Council.
2. Pursuant to the intent to conduct election to the post of office bearers in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, W.P. No. 15073/17 was filed and this Court, vide order dated 28.6.2017, appointed a retired Judge of this Court as Administrator to conduct the election. Accordingly, the Judge-Administrator had conducted the elections and after counting of the votes, the results were declared.
3. However, after the announcement of the results on 16.8.18, spate of allegations have been levelled against the nominees and also the act of the Judge-Administrator and a series of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 4442, 5449 and 5450/18 and W.P. No. 20718/18 were filed resulting in orders being passed to keep the ballot boxes under lock and seal. Thereafter, direction was also issued to the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioners on the allegations levelled not only against the eligibility of the contesting individuals but also against the Administrator to the effect that the Rules with regard to the postal ballots and their rejection was not followed and that the Administrator had acted in an arbitrary manner. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 30.05.2018, the 2nd respondent, after hearing the parties and affording opportunity and also after scrutinizing the documents, has passed an order, aggrieved by which the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the whole electoral process was rigged and fake and bogus votes were cast and, therefore, the whole election should be declared void. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Administrator, without appreciating the rule position with regard to the manner in which the votes are to be declared as invalid, has rejected votes, which are very much valid and the said act of the Administrator has prejudiced the whole election process and the election process has not been conducted in fair and proper manner.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that two of the candidates, viz., respondents 10 and 11, relevant documents in support of their candidature have not been submitted, yet the Administrator, without proper application of mind, has accepted their nomination and allowed them to contest and had declared the results, which is wholly unsustainable. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while the 10th respondent has not submitted the no objection certificate from his employer for contesting the election, the 11th respondent has not filled the application properly and supportive documents have not been filed and for the said deficiency, the nominations of the said respondents ought to have been rejected. However, the Administrator, without appreciating the above, has accepted the nominations of respondents 10 and 11.
6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that rejection of very many voters, who have cast their votes on the ground that there is mismatching of signatures or for very many other flimsy reasons, has resulted in a flawed election process, which is not in consonance with the Madras Medical Registration Act and the Rules and also the Manual appended thereto, which has gravely prejudiced the other candidates, who have contested in the elections and, therefore, the election process deserves to be set aside.
7. It is the further submission of the learned
