1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) No.1068 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 M.Selvaraj ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Election Officer cum District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3.Voter Registration Officer cum Block Development Officer, (Madurai East) Panchayat union, Madurai District. 4.State Commissioner for the disabled/ Chief Superintendent Government Rehabilitation Home No.15/1-Model School Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-6. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 04.10.2011 made in W.P.(MD).No.11500 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and allow this writ appeal. WP(MD)No.11500/2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2011 within a time frame i.e within the date of local body election to be held on 17th October, 2011. For appellant .. Mr.V.Nagendran For respondents .. Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the writ Court dated 04.10.2011 made in W.P.(MD). No.11500 of 2011, directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the appellant dated 30.09.2011 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the order copy of the writ court was received by the appellant only on 07.10.2011 and immediately on the same day, he made representation to the third respondent, but the third respondent failed to consider the same. It is contended that in view of the delay in considering the representation, the very purpose of filing the writ petition itself would be defeated, as the election date is fixed on 17.10.2011 and if the representation concerning voters list is not disposed of, the appellant's right to vote would be affected. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant has been constrained to approach this Court by challenging the order of the writ Court by preferring this writ appeal. 4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the representation given by the appellant was disposed of on 10.10.2011 by the third respondent herein stating that the appellant has not preferred the representation before the competent authority, as the matter relating to electoral list is to be considered and decided only by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is contended that the appellant, having obtained an order from this Court in his favour, cannot challenge the very same order by preferring the present writ appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by either side and perused the materials available on record including the order passed by the writ Court dated 04.10.2011. 6.The fact remains that the appellant has already succeeded by filing the writ petition, as the writ Court has already passed an order directing the third respondent to dispose of the representation of the appellant within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that the direction given by this Court was already complied with by the third respondent by passing an order on 10.10.2011, rejecting the representation on the ground that the representation of the appellant was preferred before a wrong authority, as the electoral list is to be considered and decided only by the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 now brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has also preferred a representation dated 07.10.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. 7.In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the representation of the appellant dated 07.10.2011 and also without expressing any view on the merits, is constrained to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, to consider the representation of the appellant dated 07.10.2011 within a period of five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Chief Election Officercum District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Chief Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3.The Voter Registration Officer cum Block Development Officer, (Madurai East) Panchayat union, Madurai District. 4.The State Commissioner for the disabled/ Chief Superintendent Government Rehabilitation Home No.15/1-Model School Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-6. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +2cc to Mr.V.Nagendran, Advocate Sr.No.35080 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.35183 gcg ssk/11.10.2011 /9c-3p/- Judgment in W.A (MD) No.1068 of 2011 11.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/