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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 975

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Vinodkumar – Appellant
Versus
C. P. Faizal – Respondent


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

Judgment :

1. The petitioner is a voter in Ward No.14 of Koduvally Grama Panchayat. A petition filed by him before the Kerala State Election Commission seeking an order that the first respondent is disqualified stands allowed as per Ext. P1 order. Today, vide separate judgment, that order has been confirmed. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Commission that in view of Ext.P1, the Commission ought to have further declared that the first respondent is disqualified and is not qualified to be chosen in the Panchayat at any level in view of Sections 29(f) and 34(1)(n) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

2. Section 29(f) of the Act provides that a person shall not be qualified for chosen to fill a seat in a Panchayat at any level unless he has not been disqualified under any other provisions of the Act. The said provision gets automatically attracted when a member is disqualified in terms of Section 35(1) of the Act. The incurring of the disqualification under Section 35(1)(q) is automatic because, Section 35(1) opens by saying that a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he has failed to file declaration of his assets within the time limit prescribed under Section 159. Sect

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top