Back
1987 Supreme(Ker) 501
Kerala High Court
S.PADMANABHAN
Ramachandran Kadanappalli - Appellant
Versus
K.P.Noordoen - Respondent
Decided On : 10/22/1987
M. Ramachandran, U.K. Ramakrishnan, T.K. Jayaram, V. Ramachandran and P.V. Lohithakshan, for Petitioner; P.V. Madhavan Nambiar, C.S. Ramanathan and K.P. Jagadishchandran, for Respondent.
The main legal point established is the requirement for concrete material facts and fullest particulars to constitute a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act for challenging election results.
Headnote:
Election Petition - Allegations under Representation of the People Act - S.100(1)(d)(iii), S.100(1)(b), S.123(1)A, 123(2), 123(3), 123(4), 123(7) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
In the general election to the Kerala assembly, the petitioner contested against the respondent and sought to declare the respondent's election void based on various allegations under the Representation of the People Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's allegations lacked concrete material facts and particulars, and were vague and incomplete. The court struck out the allegations and rejected the petition for not disclosing any cause of action.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the petitioner's allegations under the Representation of the People Act and whether they constituted a cause of action to challenge the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of concrete and complete facts constituting causes of action under the Act, and the requirement for the fullest particulars to engage in a trial to set aside election results.
Final Decision: The court struck out the petitioner's allegations and rejected the petition, awarding costs to the respondent.
In the general election to the Kerala assembly held in March 1987, petitioner, respondent and 11 others contested for the Peravoor No. 1.5 seat. Real contest was between the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner represented Congress (S) an ally of the L.D.F. and the respondent was the Candidate of Congress (I), an ally of the U.D.F. Respondent was declared elected by a majority of 1,805 votes. In his favour 47,817 valid votes were polled while petitioner secured only 46,012. Prayer is to declare the election of the respondent void.
2. The grounds alleged by the petitioner in support of his prayer are those coming under S.100(1)(d)(iii) and 100(1) (b) as defined in the various provisions of S.123 of the Representation of the People Act (for short, 'the Act'). The allegations are contained in paragraphs 9 to 36 of the petition. The other paragraphs of the petition are general statements. Grounds alleged in the petition as well as the schedule and affidavit are only repetitions of the facts and particular stated in paragraphs 9 to 36. Annexures are only supporting documents and tabulated statements of the particulars of the material facts.
3. For the sake of convenience in understanding I shall tabulate the allegations thus. (1) 2,000 applications for enlistment in the electoral rolls were received against the provisions of the Act and rules out of whom 640 persons mentioned in Annexure-A were unauthorisedly included in the rolls. Out of them 256 persons were once deleted but now re-enlisted. (2) In violation of S.62(3) and (4) of the Act the names of 253 voters were enlisted more than once in the list and they exercised their votes twice. A list of 262 instances of double voting is given in annexure-I. (3) 455 persons below the age of 21 shown in annexure-J were enlisted as voters and they exercised their franchise. (4) 60 persons who would have cast their vote in favour of the petitioner were illegally removed from rolls. (5) Several persons were included in the electoral rolls after the last day of nomination. One name alone was given. Items 1 to 5 were alleged to be at the instance of and under the influence of the respondent who was a Minister at that time for furthering the prospects of his election. (6) Respondent procured the assistance of Electoral Registration Officer (Tahsildar) for furtherance of his election prospects and used his telephone. (7) Inspite of objection from petitioner's party Shri. B. Krishnan, D.F.O. was appointed as Returning Officer who allowed his staff to interfere with counting. (8) P. Narayanan, gunman of the respondent, as Minister, was permitted inside the counting hall and allowed to threaten counting staff. Other officers of the forest department including P. F. Moidu were unauthorisedly allowed to be inside the counting hall and they interfered with the free discharge of the duties of the counting staff. (9) In booth No. 313 the presiding officer did not record the serial number of ballot papers and he did not give the declaration when using additional ballot box. Annexure-K complaint was ignored. (10) Ballot box in Booth No. 13 was found opened and many ballot papers did not contain the signature of the presiding officer. The paper seal of the box also was found broken. Annexure-M complaint to treat the entire ballot papers invalid was ignored by the Returning Officer on the ground that it was only an omission of the presiding officer to fix the lock position of the box. (11) Ballot box in booth No. 94 was found opened and the paper seal not in order. Annexure-N (translation as Annexure-N (a) complaint for a repoll in that booth was not allowed. (12) Postal ballots were not accompanied by proper declaration or properly attested affidavits, When Varghese Thomas elector No. 116 in booth 113 went to vote his vote was found cast by postal ballot.
4. (13) Using his influence as a Minister the respondent got administrative sanction for developmental works in the constituency to influence t
