High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 09 MAD CK 0116

C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Hr. Sec. School Committee and J. David vs The District Registrar and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 14 September 2005 · Citation: (2005) 4 LW 605

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markendey Katju, C.J · A. Kulasekaran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No''s. 2969 of 2001 and 331 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 251 words

Markendey Katju, C.J.—These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 11.12.2001. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The facts in detail have been given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The writ petitioners challenged the election of the school committee of the society and also educational agency.

3.

It had been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Thamil Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association Vs. R. Narayanan and The District Registrar of Societies, that once the election process has started, the Court cannot interfere, and it is only when the election result is declared that the election can be challenged by filing an election petition, if provided under the rules, or by filing a civil suit, if there is no provision in the rules for filing an election petition. The same view has been taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal Vs. The District Registrar and Others, .

4.

Following the said judgments, these appeals are dismissed with liberty to file civil suits. We make it clear that the appellants can also challenge the order of the Registrar dated 13.11.2000 in the civil suit subject to the objections that may be raised by the respondents.

5.

The writ appeals are dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.