1. Challenging the election of the first respondent, who is the returned candidate to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from 065 - Wadakkanchery Constituency in the Kerala State Assembly Election, another candidate, who secured the second number of highest votes in the election, has come up with this election petition on the grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.P. Act').

2. The allegation of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act has been levelled against the first respondent mainly on the basis of Annexure-I appended with the election petition. Schedule-I showing the persons, including the first respondent who had allegedly distributed copies of Annexure-I among the inhabitants of the said assembly constituency, has also been appended with the election petition. In paragraph 12 of the election petition, it has been specifically prayed that the said “Schedule-I may please be treated as part of the pleadings of this election petition”. Therefore, admittedly, Schedule-I is intended to be an integral part of the election petition.

3. The first respondent/returned candidate has come up with a preliminary objection raising serious questions regarding the maintainability of the election petition. In the preliminary objection, in paragraph 1 it has been contended as:

“This respondent respectfully submits that the above election petition cannot be called an election petition at all as it is submitted in grave violation of the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act and in contravention of the same. The same therefore, does not merit consideration on the allegations made therein are liable to be rejected at the threshold in terms of the principles evolved by the Apex Court.”

4. In paragraph 12 of the preliminary objections it has been contended:

“Schedule-I at page 64 is a schedule mentioned in para 12. However, Schedule-I is not verified at all as required under Section 83(2), which mandates that any Schedule or Annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. In addition to that, the only verification found at page 67 is that it is the true copy of Schedule I produced in the election petition. Which is the Schedule I duly produced along with the required verification is significantly absent.”

5. In paragraph 13 it has been specifically contended:

“In addition to that total absence of verification in an Annexure is fatal as violative of Section 83(2) of the Representation of the People Act. Without verifying the Annexure, no certification as true copy can be accepted as the original itself cannot be accepted as such for want of total verification. Total want of verification cannot be cured also.”

6. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramkumar for the first respondent and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.K. Damodaran for the election petitioner.

7. In the paper book placed by the Registry before this Court as the original of the paper book containing the election petition, affidavits, Schedule-I, Annexures etc., it could be seen that the election petition was verified from pages 27 to 29, which contain separate paragraphs from (1) to (4). The same was verified on 30.06.2016. Beneath the said verification, original signature of the petitioner is there and the signature of the counsel for the petitioner is also there with seal. Strangely enough, beneath that verification, another verification has been typed as follows:-

“Verification

I, Mary Thomas, aged 57 years, wife of Thomas, residing at Achakkottil House, Malakka, Manalithara Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District, the petitioner herein, do hereby verify that this is the true copy of the Election Petition.”

8. Beneath that verification, date as 30.6.2016 with the original signature of the petitioner and the original signature of the counsel for the petitioner with seal has