1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.14125 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Ambal : Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Pudukottai, (The Inspector of Panchayats). 2.Nalini : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2011 and initiate appropriate action under law and under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Singan For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation. 2. Heard Mr.V.Singan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.P. Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent. 3. The petitioner contested for the post of President of Vennavalkudi Panchayat in Alangudi Panchayat in the elections held on 19.10.2011. The second respondent was declared elected. Even at that time, the petitioner objected to the acceptance of the nomination of the second respondent on the ground that she is employed in HDFC Bank and that her resignation was yet to be accepted. Despite this objection, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the second respondent and ultimately she was declared elected. 4. Therefore, after filing an Election Petition under Section 259 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector, seeking appropriate action in terms of Section 205 or any other provisions of the Panchayats Act, so that the second respondent would not discharge the functions of the President, till she comes out clean in the election O.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In other words, the relief sought for by the petitioner is in the nature of an interim measure pending disposal of the election O.P., by appropriate Tribunal. But no Court can prevent an elected candidate from discharging the functions. While the challenge before the Tribunal is to the acceptance of the nomination of the second respondent, the prayer now made is to prevent the second respondent from discharging the functions. Since a candidate cannot be prevented from discharging the functions, except when some action is taken under certain contingencies by the Inspector of Panchayats, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is dismissed. However, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the election O.P., within six months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Collector, Pudukottai, (The Inspector of Panchayats). +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.43598 W.P.(MD)No.14125 of 2011 13.12.2011 svn SMA/29.12.2011/3C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/