Electoral complaints filed after the conclusion of the election process are inadmissible if they contradict prior court orders.

1. The petitioners are elected members of the Perambalur Primary Agricultural Co - operative Credit Society, and they were declared as Board of Directors by the Election Officer on 07.08.2018. Immediately thereafter, one S.Dhanaraj, made a representation to the Committee constituted by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 03.08.2018 to entertain the complaint dated 01.10.2018. The gist of the complaint is that, on 30.04.2018, when the said S.Dhanaraj / 6th respondent went to the Perambalur Co - operative Credit Society for filing his nomination for contesting in the election, the Election Officer came there and received nominations from one M.N.Rajaram / 1st petitioner, who gave a bunch of nominations to the officer. When S.Dhanaraj / 6th respondent wanted to file his nomination, the election officer refused to receive the same and went away. Thereafter he did not turn back to receive the nomination till 6.30 p.m., on the same day. Hence, on 03.05.2018, the said Dhanaraj gave a petition to the District Election Officer expressing his grievances and prayed to set aside the election processes. Since, no action was taken by the Election Officer, he gave a petition to the Election Committee constituted as per the order the order of the Division Bench of this Court. The committee after going through the entire materials viz., voters list, nomination papers etc., and came to a conclusion that the Election Officer did not adhere to the procedure properly and directed the Election Commission to issue necessary direction to the District Election Officer and the Society to conduct a fresh election. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 3, 4 and 5.

3. Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the election process was started as early as on 30.04.2018 and the petitioners presented their nominations and after scrutiny, the final nominations were announced on 03.05.2018, the further process of results was not announced due to the pendency of writ petitions before this Court. Thereafter, the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 03.08.2018, permitting to announce the results and also permitted to constituted to form a zonal committees to look into the election grievances. Thereafter, on 07.08.2018, final declaration of the eleven elected Board of Directors were announced and also a notification dated 06.08.2018 was issued by the election officer for election of office bearers.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 6th respondent has made a complaint before the committee only on 01.10.2018, but the judgment was made on 03.08.2018. Therefore, the petition filed by the 6th respondent before the committee is non - est in the eye of law, since the Division Bench order of this Court dated 03.08.2018 makes it clear that "only objections and / or complaints with regard to voters' lists and nominations already made by approaching this Court or alternatively by approaching this Court or alternatively by approaching the Election Commission and / or Registrar and / or any other appropriate authority shall be entertained and no new complainants and / or objectors who never raised any objection till the date of this judgment shall be entertained by the committee." The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after conclusion of the election process, the only remedy to r