Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Bar Association Chengalpattu Rep. by its President, Stephen C.Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Rep. By its Secretary and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.12947 of 2023, WMP.Nos.12732 & 12733 of 2023
Decided On : 11-06-2024
ELECTION LAW - ELECTION SCHEDULE - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an election schedule issued for the Bar Association Chengalpattu. The court found that the election had already been completed and results declared, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the court closed the writ petition and related motions, emphasizing the principle that a case becomes non-justiciable when the underlying issue has been resolved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an election schedule for the Bar Association Chengalpattu and requested the appointment of a committee to ensure fair elections. The respondents indicated that the election had already been completed and results declared.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that since the election had been conducted and results announced, the petitioner's cause of action had ceased to exist, making the writ petition moot.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the election schedule was maintainable given that the election had already taken place.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ petition becomes non-justiciable when the issue it seeks to address has already been resolved, as was the case with the completed election.
Result: The writ petition was closed, and no costs were awarded, along with the closure of connected motions.
ORDER :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Election Schedule dated 18.04.2023 issued by the respondents 3 to 6, quash the same and consequently appoint a committee to conduct the election to the office bearers of the Bar Association Chengalpattu to ensure fair and democratic way of election and pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the above circumstances of the case.
The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 would submit that the election was completed and results were declared. That apart, further election was also conducted in the year 2024. That being the factum, the cause became vanished. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed.
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable if the underlying issue has been resolved, rendering the petition moot.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear and show interest in the proceedings.
Where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved ....
Rules of game cannot be altered after the commencement of the game and the said moral obligation is applicable to the respondent-State also.
Interference in electoral matters after results are declared is barred by Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; the appropriate recourse is through an election petition.
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, not through writ petitions, due to the constitutional bar under Article 329(b).
The principle of rotation as mandated by Section 10(1-A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (the Act) and the Rules made thereunder.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
