Madras High Court dismisses writ petition to stall Chennai Press Club election

Madras High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Chennai Press Club elections, clears way for Sunday polls.

The Madras High Court on Friday (December cleared the decks for the conduct of the Chennai Press Club (CPC) elections on Sunday (December 15) by dismissing a writ petition filed by one of the members who complained that the voters’ list had not been drawn properly.

Justice S. Sounthar refused to entertain the plea seeking a direction to the Inspector General of Registration, the District Registrar and the Election Officer V. Bharathidasan, a retired High Court judge, to reschedule the polls until the redrawal of voters list.

The judge observed that the writ petitioner A.S. Mani could file a civil suit challenging the result of the elections if he was still aggrieved over the electoral list. He said, Registration department officials could not be directed to interfere in internal affairs of the club.

Senior Counsel P. Wilson, assisted by Richardson Wilson, told the court that the last election to the club was held in 1999. It was being conducted now, after a gap of 25 years, due to the efforts taken by a Special Guidance Committee (SGC) led by veteran journalist N. Ram.

The SGC had constituted a sub committee to finalise the list of members and the process was carried out with due care and diligence by asking all old members to renew their memership on payment of necessary fee and also by soliciting applications from new members.

The SGC had also appointed Mr. Bharathidasan as the Election Officer to conduct the polls in a free and fair manner. However, some disgruntled elements, squatting in the club for last 25 years, were trying to create hurdles by filing cases after cases in the High Court, he said.

Mr. Wilson brought it to the notice of the court that earlier this week, Justice G. Jayachandran had dismissed as withdrawn a civil suit filed by another member for stalling the polls. After hearing him as well as the petitioner’s counsel, Justice Sounthar held that he was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.