Madras High Court
M.Abdullah vs The Chief Election Commissioner on 11 December, 2015
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.A.(MD)No.1212 of 2015
W.A.(MD)No.1212 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015
and
W.A.(MD)No.1368 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015
M.Abdullah ... Appellant/
7th Respondent
Vs.
1.The Chief Election Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai ? 106.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District, Madurai ? 20.
3.The District Supply Officer,
Collectorate Campus,
Madurai ? 20.
4.The Returning Officer,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Madurai.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
Civil Supplies,
Madurai North Division,
Collectorate Campus,
Madurai ? 20.
6.The Regional Transport Officer,
Madurai North,
Near Mattuthavani Bus Stand,
Madurai ? 07. ... Respondents 1 to 6/
Respondents 1 to 6
7.A.Mytheen Mathar ... 7th Respondent/
Writ Petitioner
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 04.08.2015 made in W.P(MD)No.6333 of 2015.
!For Appellant ... Mr.K.Seemaraj
^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Alagathevan,
Special Govt. Pleader for R.1 to R.3, R.5 & R.6
Mr.R.Murali for R.4
Mr.M.Saravanakumar for R.7
W.A.(MD)No.1368 of 2015:
M.Abdullah ... Appellant/
Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Madurai City Corporation,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Division-II,
Madurai City Corporation,
Madurai.
3.N.Syed Ibrahim ... Respondents/
Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 04.08.2015 made in W.P(MD)No.11461 of 2015.
For Appellant ... Mr.K.Seemaraj
For Respondents ... Mr.R.Murali for R.1 & R.2
Mr.D.Sadiq Raja for R.3
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.) Both the appeals arise out a common order passed by a learned Judge in two writ petitions.
2. Heard Mr.K.Seemaraj, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals, Mr.R.Murali, learned Counsel for Madurai Corporation, Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned Counsel for the seventh respondent and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel for the third respondent in W.A(MD)No.1368 of 2015.
3. The fight on hand is between a father and his son. One of the properties which is stated to be the ancestral property was settled by the father upon this son. After the settlement was cancelled, the son filed a civil suit in O.S.No.559 of 2010 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the father from evicting him without due process of law. The suit was decreed and the father is now on appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2014 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai.
4. The decree of the trial Court was based upon the family card, voters identity card, driving licence and passport. Therefore, claiming that these documents on the basis of which the son got a decree were forged documents, the father made complaints to all the appropriate authorities. The authorities removed the name of the appellant from the Electoral Roll, issued notice for cancelling the driving licence and stopped the supply of essential commodities. Therefore the son came up with W.P(MD)No.6333 of 2015 challenging the orders of the Electoral Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Supply Officer, questioning the removal of his name from the Electoral list and family card.
5. The father filed W.P(MD)No.11461 of 2013 challenging a show cause notice for change of property tax assessment to his own name. Both the writ petitions were taken up together by a learned Judge. The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11461 of 2013, was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that what was challenged was only a show cause notice. W.P(MD)No.6333 of 2015 was disposed of by the learned Judge directing the official respondents to consider the claim of the son on the basis of the civil Court decree.
6. Aggrieved by such disposal, the father has come up with both the appeals.
7. We do not think that the learned Judge committed any irregularity or error in the order. Rightly or wrongly there is a civil Court decree. The decree of permanent injunction has not been suspended by the appellate Court. Unless and until it is suspended, the authorities are bound to act on the basis of the civil Court decree. Therefore, leaving all the issues open to be decided by the civil Court, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
To
1.The Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, 100 Feet Road, Vadapalani, Chennai ? 106.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai ? 20.
3.The District Supply Officer, Collectorate Campus, Madurai ? 20.
4.The Returning Officer, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai.
5.The Special Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Madurai North Division, Collectorate Campus, Madurai ? 20.
6.The Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North, Near Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai ? 07..