G.Epheream v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

ORDER Challenging the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by appointing six persons as convenor for conducting an election, which is contrary to the by-laws of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam.

3.Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Rajkumar, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent would submit that only after conducting enquiry with two groups of members of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam, the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent, which does not requires any interference.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

5.A perusal of the impugned order would show that there are two groups of members in the association of Nadar Mahajana Sangam. Since the dispute arouses between two groups of members with regards to conducting an election in their Sangam, the previous Administrative Members Board has been dissolved and 10 Executive Members and one convenor has been selected among the members as per by law of the said Sangam. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudalur, conducted an enquiry with the said two groups of members of the Sangam and selected six persons as a committee for conducting the election. Now, the petitioner has challenged the order of appointing six-member committee, asserting that the impugned order contravenes the by-laws of their Sangam. Since there is two groups of members in the said Sangam and there occurred a dispute with regard to conducting of election, the respondents 1 and 2 along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudalur conducted enquiry with those two groups of members and selected three persons from each group as convenor. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's intention in filing the writ petition is nothing but to stall the election. Hence, this Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition.

6.With the above observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17-12-2025 (2/2) rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of The Revenue Divisional Office, Gudalur, The Nigliris District.

2.The Tahsildar, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District.

3.The Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Rep. By Its President (Incharge) Mr. K. Kesavan Nadar, Calicut Road, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District 643 212. WPoNo.o49376oofo2025 N.SATHISHoKUMARoJ. rst WPoNo.o49376oofo2025 ANDo WMPoNO.o55147oOFo2025, WMPoNO.o55148oOFo2025 17-12-2025 (2/2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND WMP NO. 55147 OF 2025,WMP NO. 55148 OF 2025 G.Epheream, S/o Gabrieal, 4/99 Q3, OVH Road, Upper Gudalur, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District 643 211. Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of The Revenue Divisional, Office, Gudalur, The Nigliris District. 2.The Tahsildar, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District. 3.The Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Rep. By Its President (Incharge) Mr. K. Kesavan Nadar, Calicut Road, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District 643 212. Respondent(s) PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. AA1 -11672592-2025 dated 23.10.2025 and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Hemalatha For Respondent: Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate For R1 & R2 Mr.M.Rajkumar For R3