Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64930
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.08.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED W.P.(MD)No. 22273 of 2025 Arulraj, S/o.Rajendran, No.3/150, Thiruthipatti, Panangudi Post, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. ...Petitioner Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Human Resources and Management Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, 3.Mr.Babu, Election Officer, No.365/C2, North 2nd Street, Nethaji Nagar, Venkikaal, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.Mr.A.Duraipandi, S/o.Mr.Aadhinamilagi, No.5A, 10, School Street, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. ...Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent to conduct an enquiry based on the representation dated 07.08.2025 by following the provisions of the bye-law of the Tamil Nadu Government Official's Union within time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader
Judicial intervention in electoral processes is prohibited once the election proceedings have commenced, emphasizing the importance of following established legal procedures.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition filed for directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry based on the representation dated 07.08.2025 regarding election procedures; petitioner alleged that the election was being conducted contrary to the Association's Bye-laws. Court observed that judicial intervention is limited after commencement of electoral processes and upheld that challenges to elections should follow stipulated legal processes. (Paras 4-13)
(B) Election Law - Legal Principles and Precautions - Established that interference before completion of election processes is barred except under specific circumstances that do not obstruct progress; written judgments emphasized safeguarding democratic processes. (Paras 8-11)
(C)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, representing a government officials' association, sought intervention against parallel election attempts by a former member. Past events surrounding election schedules and procedural breaches by opposing factions were discussed. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for intervention as the election process was underway and maintained that the writ petition lacked merit. (Paras 13-14)
Issues: The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the High Court to intervene post commencement of the electoral process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled out the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the existing election process.
Result: The present writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent to conduct an enquiry based on the representation, dated 07.08.2025, by following the provisions of the bye-law of the Tamil Nadu Government Official's Union.
3. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner is serving as a Village Administrative Officer at S.R. Pattinam, Karaikudi, and is also holding the post of State Secretary in the Tamil Nadu Government Officials Union Association, a recognized body by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The then President of the Association, Mr.Shanmugarajan, retired from government service on 31.03.2023, and in view of Section 7(2) of the Bye-laws of the Association, any person retiring from service automatically ceases to hold office in the Association. Accordingly, the post of President became vacant. Pursuant thereto, the Association convened a meeting and passed a resolution appointing Mr.Amirthakumar as the in-charge President to fill the said vacancy.
(b) In accordance with Section 24(5)(e) of the Bye-laws of the Association, a formal election was conducted, and Mr.Amirthakumar was duly elected as the President of the Association. One Mr.Thandapani, who had contested for the post of President, was unsuccessful in the said election. Subsequently, due to his acts of misconduct and activities against the interest of the Association, Mr.Thandapani was removed from the membership of the Association by order dated 01.02.2024, and a resolution confirming his removal was passed on 03.02.2024. The said Mr.Thandapani was also dismissed from government service on 26.06.2024 on account of proven charges of corruption. Based on the resolution of the Association and in accordance with the Bye-laws, it was decided to conduct fresh elections for the Association. Accordingly, the Petitioner, on behalf of the Association, submitted a representation to the 1st Respondent on 31.07.2025 along with the proposed schedule for the upcoming election, and the election notification was also issued on the same date. Pursuant thereto, the Association’s election is scheduled to be held on 24.08.2025, and the process of filing nominations was successfully completed on 09.08.2025.
(c) While the matter stood thus, the 4th Respondent, falsely claiming to be an authority of the Association, approached the 1st Respondent seeking approval to conduct elections for the Association. However, the 1st Respondent rightly rejected the said proposal. Aggrieved by the rejection, the 4th Respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 27150 of 2025 before this Hon’ble Court, which was subsequently closed, granting liberty to challenge the rejection order in an appropriate manner. Despite the failure of the said writ petition, the 2nd Respondent has, in collusion with the 3rd Respondent, attempted to conduct a parallel election contrary to the established Bye-laws and resolutions of the Association. The 3rd Respondent, who was previously removed from the Association on disciplinary grounds, is unlawfully using the name of the Association and issued an election notification dated 30.07.2025 for the term 2025–2028. On the same day, the 3rd Respondent issued election proceedings and arbitrarily fixed the venue of the election at Sivagangai, with the date of nomination on 12.08.2025 and the election scheduled for 29.08.2025. The aforesaid illegal act is clearly intended to create confusion, parallel authority, and an unwarranted dispute among the members of the Association. The 3rd Respondent is fully aware that the official Association election is scheduled to be conducted on 24.08.2025, strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws and based on prop
