Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Peter - Appellant
Versus
Aravindakshan - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 3749 of 1998
Decided On : 08/19/1998
Advocates Appeared :
P.P. Jacob For Petitioner T.D. Rajalakshmi & Sebastian Davis For Respondents
Court Fees - Election Dispute - S.70(1)(c) of the Act - R.67(7)(a)(I) - R.67(7) - Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed an Election Petition challenging the election held in a Co-operative Society. The petition was rejected by the Arbitrator due to insufficient court fees paid by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were required to pay the prescribed court fees as per the relevant rules and statutes, and the failure to do so rendered the petition not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the election petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable or not due to deficiency of court fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the strict compliance with formalities relating to election petitions and highlighted the mandatory requirement of paying requisite court fees as per the applicable rules and statutes.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the rejection of the election petition by the Arbitrator due to insufficient court fees paid by the petitioners.
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of Election Petition, A.R.C. No. 1819 of 1996 by the Arbitrator holding that the petitioners have not affixed necessary court fees for entertaining the election dispute.
2. Election Petition dated 19.7.1996 was filed by six petitioners before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, who vide Ext. PI order dated 7.8.1996, in exercise of the powers under S.70(1)(c) of the Act, appointed the Assistant Registrar (General), Kanayannur to hear and dispose of the matter.
3. Arbitration case was tiled against the election held on 23.9.1996 in the Thevara Urban Co-operative Society, in which respondents 1 to 5 got elected. Petitioners wanted a declaration that the election held on 23.9.1996 is void and illegal and that petitioners should be declared to have been elected in the place of respondents 1 to 5. Before the Arbitrator a preliminary objection was raised by the third respondent contending that Arbitration Case is not liable to be entertained since the requisite court fees have not been remitted by the petitioners. According to third respondent and others, petitioners ought to have remitted Rs. 500/- each towards fee as per R.67(7)(a)(I) and also court fee of Rs. 12/-. Instead, the petitioners have jointly paid only an amount of Rs. 500/- as fee and Rs. 2/- towards court fee. Further respondents 1 to 5 have also raised another contention that Arbitration Petition was not accompanied by the records relied on by the petitioners and only a list of relevant documents relied on by the petitioners was produced.
4. Petitioners filed a statement to the preliminary objection stating that as per R.67(7)(a)(I) of the Rules, they need pay only Rs. 500/- to decide the dispute in the Election Petition. According to petitioners, all the petitioners need not independently pay Rs. 500/- for deciding the dispute. Further it was also stated that R.67(7) is intended only to subsequent petitions and applications which are being presented regarding interlocutory prayers. Therefore, there is no necessity of affixing stamp of Rs. 2/- by way of court fee in an Election Petition.
5. Contentions raised by the petitioners were repelled by the arbitrator. Arbitrator rejected the petition holding that sufficient court fee has not been affixed by the' petitioners.
6. The short question that has come up for consideration in this Case is whether the election petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable or not due to deficiency of court fee.
7. I am of the view that this question has already been answered by a learned single judge of this Court in Gopalakrishna Panickerv, State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 495. This Court took the view that it has been the settled law that formalities relating to election petitions have to be complied with strictly, and that any deviation therefrom will prove fatal to the very maintainability of the petition itself. This is because the right to challenge an election is not a common law right, but a special right which has to be specifically conferred by statute and therefore, the terms of of the statute conferring the right have to be complied with before the petition can be maintained and entertained. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Charan Lai Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhat, AIR 1973 SC 2464, and in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1974 SC 1185, the Court highlighted the public interest which requires an expeditious culmination of the election process.
8. The relevant rule, which is applicable to this case, is extracted below:
"67. Reference of disputes, payment of expense and decisions on disputes:-(7)(a) The fees for deciding the dispute shall be as follows:
I. Monetary disputes:-Forty paise for claims of every Rs. 10 or part thereof, subject to a minimum of Rs. 10 and a maximum of Rs. 500/
II. Non-monetary disputes
For cases filed by the employees of the society Rs. 500/--(ii) In other cases Rs. 500/
Note:- The fees shall be paid i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.