Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair order and decreetal order of the Principal Sub Judge of Nagerkoil in E.A.No.53 of 2001 in O.S.No.207 of 1957 dated 30.08.2004 in allowing the petition to declare the election conducted by the 5th respondent herein for the 4th respondent trust on 03.12.2000 as null and void.
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair order and decreetal order of the Principal Sub Judge of Nagerkoil in E.A.No.53 of 2001 in O.S.No.207 of 1957 dated 30.08.2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thiagarajan For R1 to R3 : Ms.J.Anandhavalli For R7 to R10 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy :COMMON ORDER Pursuant to the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.207/1957 as modified in A.S.No.763/1963, election to the Managing Committee of Kottar Veerasaiva Community Trust was conducted by the Advocate Commissioner on 03.12.2000. Alleging irregularity in the election process, petition was filed before the Sub Court and after hearing both sides and perusing the records, the application was allowed by the Sub Court setting aside the election held on 03.12.2000.
2.The reason given by the Court below for setting aside the election is as under:-
In E.A.No.78/2000 filed by one Thanumoorthy, son of Sankaralingam Pandaram, considering the rejection of his nomination as illegal and erroneous, the election process held on 03.12.2000 has been set aside. Therefore, the election for the 4 members post representing the villagers is also set aside.
3.The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per the scheme decree, 7 members have to be elected for the Managing Committee of the said Trust 3 representing from 3 distinct families and 4 from the entire villagers of the particular community. While so, the irregularity in rejecting the nomination of one application reserved for 3 families cannot be the reason to set aside the election of 4 members by the entire village members.
4.It is further contended by the revision petitioner that the election was conducted based on the voters list prepared by the Commissioner. Having accepted the voters list, the candidates who have lost the election cannot challenge the voters list as they are estopped from questioning the voters list since they have participated in the election.
5.This Court finds force in the abovesaid submission. If at all there was any discrepancy in the voters list, that point should have been agitated before participating in the election and not after conclusion of the election. From the records this Court could not find that whether such an objection was raised by the respondents before commencement of election.
6.But, in any event, election for 7 posts is a composite exercise wherein, this Court has found rejection of the nomination of one Thanumoorthy is not in accordance with law and confirmed the order passed by the Sub Court in E.A.No.78/2000 ordering re-election while disposing CRP(MD)No.227/2004. Therefore, without adverting to the other observations made in the impugned order, the order of the Court below directing the Commissioner to conduct fresh election alone is confirmed. The parties are at liberty to approach the Court for appointing fresh Commissioner to conduct the election in accordance with law.
7.With this observation, CRP(PD)(MD)No.301 of 2004 is disposed of. In terms of the order passed in CRP(PD)(MD)No.301 of 2004, CRP(PD)(MD)No.392 of 2004 is also disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Principal Sub Judge, Nagerkoil..