Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (1.65 seconds)N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, Namakkal ... on 21 January, 1952
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the 7th respondent,
the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-
State and the District Election Officer-cum-Deputy
Commissioner and having perused the appeal papers, this
Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any
doubt that in matters of election, this Court will have to go
by the rule book. As rightly submitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellant, having regard to the celebrated
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), once the calendar of events
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2023
are announced, no Court can pass any order that could
cause interference in the process of election. No doubt, it
has been clarified in subsequent decisions that Courts can
pass orders which would assist the process of election and
would not cause any interference in the process of
election. But, we are faced with a situation where the
elections have already been held and the results have
been declared and the appellant has been functioning as
Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. It is also true that
Section 19 of the Act, would not enable the 7th respondent
to file an election petition challenging the impugned
notification where the reservation is provided to the posts
of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of the Gram Panchayats
of the Taluk. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered
opinion that any person aggrieved of the reservation
notification, is required to diligently challenge the same in
a manner known to law, secure interim orders or
directions that would enable the aggrieved person to
maintain the challenge raised to the reservation
1