HC orders special meeting to consider no-confidence motion against Karaikudi mayor
Madras high court
on Tuesday directed the Karaikudi corporation commissioner to convene a special council meeting to decide on the representation made by councillors to consider a no-confidence motion against mayor S Muthudurai of DMK.
Justice C Saravanan passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by V Ramkumar, the AIADMK councillor of ward 22. The petitioner stated that out of the 36 councillors in the corporation, one councillor had resigned. Among them, he along with 22 councillors made a representation for initiating a no-confidence motion against the mayor, due to administrative inefficiency, public dissatisfaction, and failure to discharge duties in accordance with the law, on July 10.
Despite the representation with the required quorum as per the statute, no action has been taken to convene the special meeting or process the same, he added.
The petitioner stated that the inaction of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and Rule 161 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules. Hence, the petitioner moved court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC quashes Rayagada admn order curbing entry of doc
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday quashed the Rayagada collector's June 4 order prohibiting medical practitioner and activist Dr Randall Sequeira from entering the district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice S K Panigrahi held that while law and order concerns are valid, blanket prohibitions infringe upon constitutional rights and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions. The ban order, which also included noted activist and 22 others, was imposed for two months ahead of a planned protest against proposed bauxite mining at Sijimali hills. Authorities had cited potential disruptions to public peace and administrative functioning for justifying the order. Justice Panigrahi emphasised, "In a constitutional democracy, the govt should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion." He reaffirmed that protest rights under Article 19 must be preserved, and restrictions should aim at regulation — not denial. The court took note of the context in which the ban was issued — during Rath Yatra festivities, when police resources were stretched thin. However, it stated that those constraints were temporary and no longer justified continuing restrictions. Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based physician known for providing free medical care to tribal communities, challenged the order, arguing that it hindered his ability to deliver essential services. His counsel, advocate Afraaz Suhail, contended that the ban was disproportionate and unconstitutional. The court agreed, allowing Sequeira to re-enter Rayagada immediately, and issued operational guidelines for future protests. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now These include written notice to district authorities, coordination with police, designated protest locations, and lawful restrictions on timing, sound and crowd management. Justice Panigrahi clarified these conditions are specific to the current case and do not override general constitutional protections. He warned that any violation by protesters would invite legal action, while any arbitrary denial of protest rights by the state would face judicial scrutiny. Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday quashed the Rayagada collector's June 4 order prohibiting medical practitioner and activist Dr Randall Sequeira from entering the district. Justice S K Panigrahi held that while law and order concerns are valid, blanket prohibitions infringe upon constitutional rights and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions. The ban order, which also included noted activist Medha Patkar and 22 others, was imposed for two months ahead of a planned protest against proposed bauxite mining at Sijimali hills. Authorities had cited potential disruptions to public peace and administrative functioning for justifying the order. Justice Panigrahi emphasised, "In a constitutional democracy, the govt should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion." He reaffirmed that protest rights under Article 19 must be preserved, and restrictions should aim at regulation — not denial. The court took note of the context in which the ban was issued — during Rath Yatra festivities, when police resources were stretched thin. However, it stated that those constraints were temporary and no longer justified continuing restrictions. Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based physician known for providing free medical care to tribal communities, challenged the order, arguing that it hindered his ability to deliver essential services. His counsel, advocate Afraaz Suhail, contended that the ban was disproportionate and unconstitutional. The court agreed, allowing Sequeira to re-enter Rayagada immediately, and issued operational guidelines for future protests. These include written notice to district authorities, coordination with police, designated protest locations, and lawful restrictions on timing, sound and crowd management. Justice Panigrahi clarified these conditions are specific to the current case and do not override general constitutional protections. He warned that any violation by protesters would invite legal action, while any arbitrary denial of protest rights by the state would face judicial scrutiny.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘Tamil Nadu Day': Stalin, Udhayanidhi hail the State CM Stalin and deputy Udhayanidhi sing praises for the State
On the occasion of the 'Tamil Nadu Day' on Friday, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and his deputy Udhayanidhi Stalin led leaders in hailing the State. In a social media post, Mr. Stalin shared a video of former CM C.N. Annadurai and credited the DMK government for having given the new identity for the State. It was on this day, July 18, 1967, the State got its real name 'Tamil Nadu', which was a long dream, the Chief Minister said. Hailing former CM C.N. Annadurai, Mr. Stalin recalled that the late leader uttered the name thrice in the Assembly amidst the thumping of desks. In a social media post, Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin recalled how emotionally charged the moment was within the Assembly on the day when the State got the name. He also called for defeating the 'fascist forces' and those assisting them by giving up the rights of the State. He called for efforts to defeat 'rivals and traitors' who he claimed were against the interests of the State. The Tamil Development Department organised various competitions for school students to mark the 'Tamil Nadu Day' celebrations. During an event here on Friday, the Minister for Information and Publicity M.P. Saminathan distributed financial assistance to aged Tamil scholars who have contributed to the development and promotion of the Tamil language. He also distributed prizes to the winners. Pollachi MP K. Eswarasamy and senior officials were present.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
No person can deny access to a temple based on caste: HC
Madurai: It is shocking that even after 75 years of Independence, people are still being kept out of temples because of their caste, observed the Madras high court , while holding that no person or group can deny access to a public temple based on caste. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that a petition filed by Vanniyakulachathiriyar Nala Arakattalai, represented by its president Murugan, seeks the removal of a prohibitory order of 2018 and permission to resume festivals and worship at the Mariamman temple in Chinna Dharapuram, Karur district. According to the trust, no caste discrimination has occurred at the temple. However, another petitioner, Marimuthu, alleges that scheduled caste devotees are not being allowed to worship. The judge took note of the report filed by the Karur district collector stating that the temple has remained closed since 2018, except for pujas, due to apprehension of communal tension and the risk of law and order disturbances. Condemning the report, the judge observed that the closure of a public temple, under the guise of a law and order concern, is a dereliction of constitutional duty. The collector cannot escape his duty by simply saying there may be trouble. It is his responsibility to handle it using the state machinery. "Police seem to think that the only way to keep peace is by denying entry to everyone. This is wrong," the judge observed. It is also the duty of the HR and CE department and the state to ensure that everyone is allowed to worship and there is no caste-based exclusion. The judge then directed the department to file a report. The judge directed both parties to cooperate with the officials and maintain peace and harmony.
