IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:17.8.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.4047 of 2010 T.Arumugam ... Petitioner Versus 1.Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary Public Works Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 3.Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 4.Project Engineer, Water Resources and Irrigation System Thiruvalur District Thiruvalur. 5.Mr.S.Krishnappa Reddy 6.Mr.M.Shanmugam 7.Mr.S.Thangavelu .... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of declaration declaring the election held on 13.2.2010 for the post of President of distributory committee, Mangakuppam & Narayanapuram Eri, Pattaraiperumpudur, Thiruvallur Taluk & District as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sivamani For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Government Advocate for RR 1 to 4 Mr.A.R.Suresh for R7 Mr.M.Murali for R6 No Appearance R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER One of the unsuccessful candidates is before this court challenging the election held on 13.2.2010 in which the 7th respondent was declared elected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and water user of Mangakupppam Village Eri, Pattaraiperumbakkam Post, Thiruvallur Taluk and District. The State government conducted an election for Distributory Committee for Water User Association of Manjankuppam lake on 13.2.2010 in which the petitioner was also a contestant along with respondents 5 to 7. The election was held on 13.2.2010. The petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6 were defeated and the 7th respondent was declared elected. The petitioner has come before this court challenging the said election for violation of Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation systems Act 2000 (Tamil Nadu Act 2001) and especially Rule 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation System Election Rules 2003.) 3. Mr.P.Sivamani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 8 of the Act there would be a Managing Committee for every Distributory Committee and the election for the said Managing Committee is required to be conducted by the Collector. As per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Election Rules 2003, the collector has to prepare a list of land owners and the list should be displayed on the notice board of the office of the concerned Village Panchayat and Panchayat Union and the said list is required to be revised in six months before the commencement. 4. Learned counsel pointed out that neither preparation of list nor the display or revision was done before six months of the said election. He further submitted that originally electoral roll was prepared on 1.9.2009 and an election was held on 18.9.2009. Subsequently elected persons resigned their posts by virtue of letter dated 29.9.2009 and thereafter only the present election was held. Learned counsel pointed out that the present election was conducted on 13.2.2010 without following the mandatory provisions of the Act as well as the rules therefor and therefore he sought for setting aside the election. 5. Mr.Murali learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the sixth respondent was one of the contestants. He pointed out that as many as 153 voters already died and their legal heirs were not brought on in the voters list. Moreover 77 voters were not in the village and they shifted their residence. Based on the above grounds, he also sought for setting aside the election and in fine https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he supported the petitioner's case. 6. On the other hand, Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submitted that the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 were defeated candidates and they cannot belatedly make a complaint that the provisions of the Act were not followed while the election was conducted. He further stated that if there are legal heirs of the eligible voters, who died, it is for them to make claim and not for the petitioner and other respondents. He relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this court in S.Thamil Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association, Chennai vs. R.Narayanan and another reported in 2005 (1) CTC 399 and contended that when the provision does not permit to challenge the validity of the election, the only remedy available is to file a civil suit. 7. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate submitted that the election was conducted as per law and the election results were already declared. Since the petitioner was defeated, he has come before this court. 8. The petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 filed their nomination and participated in the election which was conducted on 13.2.2010. The 7th respondent was declared as elected by securing 68 votes; fifth respondent secured two votes; 6th respondent secured 50 votes and the petitioner got as low as two votes. Petitioner and other candidates on their own accord participated in the election. Till they were defeated, they did not point out any discrepancy in the election process. Even if there were any violation/discrepancy in the conduct of the election, it is deemed to be waived by the defeated candidates. Moreover in this case, voters list was published and that was known to the petitioners as well as the other defeated candidates. Having known the said position only they took part in the election and therefore petitioner and others are estopped from questioning the election. 9. As far as the contention with regard to publication of voter is concerned the list was within the knowledge of petitioner as well as the other defeated candidates. Having known that the voters list was not prepared/displayed and revised as per rule 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Election Rules 2003, still they participated in the election and it would make it clear that it is only the usual cry of the defeated candidates that violations were made while conducting the election. If the petitioner and other defeated candidates were very seriously affected by violation, nothing prevented from objecting about conducting of election by approaching the authorities in violation of act and rules. No such thing was done by the petitioner and other defeated candidates. Mr.M.Murali, learned counsel for 6th respondent submitted that on 25.2.2010, the 6th respondent gave objection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However it is seen that election was conducted on 13.2.2010 and subsequent objection would not make any effect. 10. As far as the contention with regard to non-bringing of legal heirs of the eligible voters, who died are concerned, the petitioner could have brought to the notice of the authority at the earliest. Having got defeated in the election, it is not open to the defeated candidates to take such a ground on the basis of the parties, who are not before this court. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, the provision of the Act as well as the rules do not permit any one to challenge the validity of the election held. The only remedy if at all available to the defeated candidates is to file a regular suit, where the civil court can go into all the factual aspects, as per the judgement of the Division Bench of this court reported in S.Thamil Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association, Chennai vs. R.Narayanan and another reported in 2005 (1) CTC 399 Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Secretary Government of Tamilnadu Public Works Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Project Engineer, Water Resources and Irrigation System Thiruvalur District Thiruvalur. + 1 cc to Mr. M. Murali, Advocate SR No.61142 + 1 cc to M/s. A.R. Suresh, Advocate SR No.60543 NSM(CO) SR/23.9.2010 W.P.No.4047 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/