S.T. MUTHUSAMI versus K. NATARAJAN & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 20-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'"i. 
S.T. MUTHUSAMI 
v. 
K. NATARAJAN & ORS. 
JANUARY 20, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958-Whether High Court could 
interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after comm-
encement of election process and before declaration of result of election 
held for filling vacancy in the office of Chairman of a Panchayat Union 
under provisions-Thereof. 
The question for consideration in this case was whether it was 
appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an election process at 
an intermediate stage after its commencement and before the declara-
tion of the result of the election held for filling up a vacancy in the office 
of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the Tamil Nadu Pan-
chayats, Act, 1958 (The Act), on the ground that there was an error in 
the matter of allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates. 
The appellant, the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 6 and 
two others were nominated as candidates at the election held to the 
office of the Chairman, Panchayat Union, !\ladathukkulam. On scru-
tiny of the nomination papers, the nomination papers of the appellant, 
respondents Nos. 1 and 6, and the two others were found to be valid b) 
the Returning Officer. Under rule 17(1) of the Tamil '\adu Panrhayats 
(Conduct of Election of Chairman of Panchayat L nion Councils & Pres-
idents and members of Panchayats) Rules 1978, !The Rules), the 
Returning Officer was directed by the State Government to assign to 
. ~he 
candidates of the National and State parties the symbols reserved by 
the Chief Election Commissioner. The symbol reserved for the Indian 
i 
National Congress (I) was 'hand'. Under the procedure prescribed by 
the Government, intimation was received by the Returning Officer 
showing the appellant as the candidate of the Indian National Congress 
(!) under the signatures of the President of the Tamil Nadu Congress (I) 
Coiiimittee on the 3rd February, 1986. A similar letter was handed over 
by respondent No. 6 on that date showing that he was also the official 
candidate of the Indian National Congress (I) Committee. That letter 
also appeared to have been signed by the President of the Tamil Nadu 
Congress (I) Committee. Faced with two persons claiming to be the 
official candidates of the same party, the Returning Officer declined to 
759 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A assign the symbol 'hand' to either of the two. These two candidates, 
i.e., the appellant and respondent No. 6, then gave in writing their 
choice of symbols belonging to the unreserved category. The Returning 
Officer allotted the symbol of 'glass tumbler' to the appellant and the 
symbol 'fish' to respondent No. 6. The Returning Officer then published 
B 
c 
the list of the candidates nominated with the symbols allotted to each of 
the three candidates whose nomination papers had been found to be 
valid. Immediately, on publication of the said list, the President of the 
Tamil Nadu Congress (I) Committee, who was alleged to have signed 
the letters in favour of both the appellant and respondent No. 6 as the 
official candidates, wrote to the respondent No. 3, the Election Author-
ity as well as the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development 
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, on 4.2.86 stating that he had 
not given his approval to respondent No. 6 being the official Congress 
(I) candidate, and the authorised candidate of the Congress (I) Party 
was the appellant. On receipt of the letter, the respondent No. 3 sent a 
message to the Collector of Coimbatore to treat the appellant as the 
D official candidate of the Indian National Congress (I) Party and to 
assign the symbol 'hand' to him. ThP Collector communicated this 
message to the Returning Officer on 6.2.86. The Returning Officer 
issued, in accordance with that direction, an Errata Notification in 
Form IV assigning the symbol 'hand' reserved for the Indian National 
Congress (I) to the appellant on that date itself and sent copies of the 
E 
said Notification to all the contesting candidates. This action of the 
Returning Officer was challenged by respondent No. l a validly 
nominated candidate with 'bow and arrow' as his symbol, by a writ 
petition in the High Court, contending that the issuing of the Errata 
Notification was an abuse of power on extraneous and irrelevant consid-
erations and there was undue interference with the actual conduct of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.