1. The First Appeal from Orders is filed by the respondent in O.P. (Election) No.109/2005 on the file of the District Court Manjeri. C.R.P.No.997/2006 is filed by the petitioner in the above said original petition. The F.A.O is filed by the returned candidate challenging the judgment of the court below declaring his election from Ward No.14 (Paravanna Division) of Tirur Block Panchayath as void. The C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner against the part of the order of the court below by which it held that debt due to Kerala State Financial Enterprise is not a debt due to Government within the meaning of Section 34 (1) (j) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (Act for short) and hence a candidate who is in arrears to K.S.F.E. and fails to discharge the debt even after the expiry of the period specified in a bill or notice served on him is not disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of Panchayath

2. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition. The petitioner and respondents were candidates for the election to local bodies held on 26-9-2005. They contested from ward No.14 (Paravanna Division) of Tirur Block Panchayath. The 1st respondent was declared elected. The petitioner filed O.P (Election) 109/2005 for a declaration that the election of the 1st respondent was void. It was averred that the 1st respondent was disqualified for being chosen as and for being member of the Panchayath. In paragraph 2 of the Original petition it was averred that the 1st respondent was a subscriber to a chitty conducted by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. (K.S.F.E. for short) He bid chitty and received Rs.1,34,322/- It was further averred that he committed default in payment of the further subscription from 15-8-1998 and K.S.F.E. had issued a demand notice claiming arrears with 12% interest from 15-8-1998 to the 1st respondent. He did not repay the amount within the time limit despite the receipt of the demand notice, and hence disqualified to contest for election. It was further averred that the 1st respondent filed nomination paper suppressing those facts and contested for the election held on 26-9-2005 This fact came to the notice of the petitioner only a few days prior to the filing of the petition. It was averred that 1st respondent suppressed material facts and hence his election to Block Panchayat is to be declared void.

3. Along with the original petition the petitioner filed an affidavit. In the affidavit also it was averred that 1st respondent suppressed the fact that he was a defaulter to the K.S.F.E and he filed nomination paper suppressing that fact.

4. The 1st respondent filed a counter contending that the election petition is not maintainable. It was contended that necessary parties for the election petition were not made parties. The returning officer was not made a party. Affidavit filed along with the petition was defective. It was contended that the affidavit filed along with O.P by the petitioner was an incomplete one and as such the 1st respondent was not in a position to file his objections. The contention that the 1st respondent suppressed the fact that he was a defaulter to K.S.F.E was denied. It was specifically contended that there was no specific allegation as to how the 1st respondent was disqualified to contest election. It was contended that a reading of the Original Petition gives an impression that the petitioner intends to raise a ground that 1st respondent was disqualified under Section 34 (i) (j) of the Act. It was contended that K.S.F.E is a separate entity of Government of Kerala undertaking, but it is not a limb of Government. It was contended that even accepting the contention that the amounts were due to K.S.F.E. the same was not a disqualification to contest for election. It was contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the 1st respondent was a qualified candidate. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the original petition.

5. Petitioner gave ora