SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Ker) 969

High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
Pulkuzhiyil Mohammadkutty
Versus
Pookkottil Sadanandan, S/O. Peru & Another
WP(C).No. 11153 of 2008 (C)
Decided on : 26-11-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Murali Purushothaman, SC,K.S.E.COMM.

The effect of disqualification on election disputes and the timing of the court's decision on declaring an election void.

Headnote:

Election Dispute - Disqualification and By-Election - The court confirmed the disqualification of the first respondent under Section 35(1)(q) read with Section 159 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner's plea to defer the by-election until the disposal of the election petition was rejected based on the legal provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the election to the Koduvally Grama Panchayat from Ward No.2. The first respondent was disqualified, and the petitioner sought to defer the by-election due to allegations of double voting.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought for.

Issues: Disqualification of the first respondent, plea to defer by-election, and the effect of Sections 35(1)(q), 159, and 107(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

Ratio Decidendi: The continued trial of the election petition against a member who has become disqualified cannot be insisted upon, and the decision declaring the election void takes effect only from the date ordered by the court.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's plea to defer the by-election was rejected.

Judgment :

1. The petitioner lost to the first respondent in the election to the Koduvally Grama Panchayat from Ward No.2. He filed Ext.P1 petition before the competent court challenging that election. While so, at the instance of another person, the Kerala State Election Commission declared that the first respondent member is disqualified in terms of the provisions of Section 35(1)(q) read with Section 159 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, the "Act". That decision has been confirmed by this Court today.

2. In the wake of the disqualification incurred by the first respondent and the declaration in that regard by the Commission, the petitioner apprehends that there will be a by-election. He pleads is that the main ground in his election petition Ext.P1 is allegation of double voting. He accordingly, seeks an order directing the Election Commission defer the by-election until the disposal of Ext.P1 election petition filed by the petitioner since he has sought for an order therein that he be declared as elected.

3. Chapter X of the Act relates to disputes regarding election. Section 87 therein provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of that Chapter. Section 102 provides the grounds for declaring election to be void and Section 103 provides grounds on which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. Sections 89 to 92 provide the jurisdiction and requirements to be complied with regarding joinder of parties, contents of petition etc. Sections 93 to 99 regulate the trial of election petitions and Sections 100 and 101 provide for the decision of the courts and other orders to be made by the court. Ultimately, Section 107(1) categorically states that an order under Section 100 or Section 101 shall take effect as soon as it is pronounced by the court. Sub section 2 of Section 107 saves all proceedings in which the member whose election is declared as invalid had participated, from invalidation on that ground. An order declaring the election as void takes effect as soon as it is pronounced. This is the effect of sub-section 1 of Section 107. The continued trial of the election petition against a member who has since become disqualified, cannot be insisted upon since the elected member, even before the election petition is decided, has ceased to be a member by the operation of Section 35(1) of the Act and the decision declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void can take effect only from the date on which the court orders so, this being the effect of Sections 100 and 107(1).

For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top