Election Commission Tamil Nadu State Co Operative Societies vs. R. Sakkarapani

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10051-10059/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-04-2018 in WMP No. 7255/2018 09-04-2018 in WMP No. 7254/2018 09-04-2018 in WMP No. 7253/2018 12-04-2018 in WMP No. 7255/2018 12-04-2018 in WMP No. 7254/2018 12-04-2018 in WMP No. 7253/2018 12-04-2018 in WPMD No. 6909/2018 12-04-2018 in WPMD No. 7186/2018 12-04-2018 in WPMD No. 7620/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras At Madurai)

ELECTION COMMISSION TAMIL NADU STATE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANR. Petitioners

VERSUS

R. SAKKARAPANI & ORS. Respondents

WITH Diary No(s). 14687/2018 (XII)

Date : 07-05-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioners

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, Adv. Mr. Karuna Karan, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Mr. A. Sriram, Adv. For Respondents Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Veera Kathi Ravan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Mr. P. Mahendran, Adv. Ms. Harshal Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. Mr. Akshay R., Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2018.05.08 14:25:58 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

2

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.

Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in SLP(C) Nos. 10051-10059/2018, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in SLP(C) No………./2018 (Diary No.14687/2018) and Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the respondents in both the special leave petitions.

This Court on 20.4.2018 had passed the following order:-

"Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu and Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel that the High Court has erred in law while staying the ongoing election process. Per contra, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel would contend that approximately 1,40,000 people had filed their nomination papers out of which approximately 70,000 nomination papers have been accepted. It is his further submission that these all 70,000 persons whose nomination papers have been accepted inevitably shall be elected un-opposed. This fact is disputed by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

Let an affidavit be filed by the first respondent, in this regard, by giving proper data, within a week hence.

The assisting counsel of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel shall also file an affidavit in this regard.

Let the matter be listed on 03.05.2018.

In the meantime, the voting shall take place but no result shall be declared without the leave of this Court."

On 3.5.2018, the matter was adjourned for today.

We have been apprised that the polling has taken place and the votes are to be counted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to pass the following order:-

(a) The High Court shall decide WP(MD) Nos. 7620/2018, 7186/2018 and 6909/2018 by the end of June, 2018;

(b) The High Court would be at liberty, if it feels appropriate, to issue further directions, including for declaration of results of the election if on an assessment of facts, it considers any such direction to be appropriate;

(c) The parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the High Court;

(d) The High Court shall address all issues including the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions; and

(e) If the High Court considers it appropriate, it may also issue other directions, so that the members of the individual societies are not adversely affected in their requirements or needs as members.

In view of the above, the special leave petitions stand disposed of.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar