Libertatem Magazine

Appeal Filed in Madras High Court Against Court’s Decision in Petition for Mistake Committed in Conducting Election

Contents of this Page


An appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 28.10.2020.

Facts of the Case

A writ petition was filed for the mistake committed while conducting the Election. The learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments and considering the records held that the writ petitioner having allotted the ‘Auto Rickshaw symbol’ against the ‘lock and key symbol’ the confusion was self-inflicted and on extraneous consideration. 

The writ petition was thus allowed directing the appellant to do the consequential act to declare the first respondent/writ petitioner as elected.


The Appellant contended that Appellants being neutral body and in the absence of any statutory prescription, the direction could not be carried out against the Returning Officer who had been arrayed as the second respondent. 

Court’s Observation

The court had observed that the contention raised by the Appellant would not alter the ultimate conclusion held by the learned Single Judge. The contesting respondent in the writ petition 4th respondent, Vijaylaxmi had not come before the court challenging the order and so as the second respondent, Returning Officer/Block Development Officer. The returning officer/Block Development Officer was only a statutory authority who could not have a grievance.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge by directing the second respondent (The Returning Officer / Block Development Officer) who could be represented by the learned government pleader to carry out the direction of the learned Single Judge.

The same was held to be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge against the appellant was over and the period of filling the appeal which could be available to the fourth respondent (Vijayalakshmi) was also over. This position is also the case qua the second respondent, (The Returning Officer / Block Development Officer).

The writ appeal was thus disposed of.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


About the Author