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

2014 Supreme(Ker) 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Anitha Baby - Appellant
v.
Kunjappan Painkily - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.12014 of 2014
Decided On : 02-12-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.D. Shenoy (Sr. Advocate) & Legith T. Kottakkal
For the Respondents:K. Ramakumar (Sr. Advocate), S.M. Prasanth, M. Manojkumar (Chelakkadan), Asha Babu, Ammu Charles, Thomas John Ambooken (Sr. Government Pleader) & Murali Purushothaman

Headnote:

Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules 2000 - Rule 4 - Disqualification is contemplated for non-compliance with the direction, failure to adhere, infliction of disqualification based on inference or mere oral evidence is impermissible and as such illegal - Challenged - Held, R.4 of the Rules would reveal that it is not a method recognised or prescribed thereunder. When the statute prescribes a manner for issuing direction in writing and a very serious consequence of disqualification is contemplated for non-compliance with the direction in case of failure to adhere scrupulously to the prescribed manner in the matter of its issuance, infliction of disqualification based on inference or mere oral evidence contrary to the facts obtained from the documentary evidence is illegal and impermissible

JUDGMENT :

1. These Writ Petitions arise from a common order dated 3.5.2014 of the Kerala State Election Commission in O.P.Nos.52, 51 and 53 of 2013 respectively. The petitioners herein have allegedly played different roles in the election to the Presidentship of Thirumaradi Grama Panchayat (for short ‘the Panchayat’) which ultimately found by the Election Commission as amounting to disloyalty and as such sufficient to disqualify them from being members of the said Panchayat under S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’) for having committed defection. Consequently, declarations that the petitioners stood disqualified for being members of the Panchayat as provided by S.3(1)(a) of the Act and also disqualified for contesting as candidates in an election to any local authorities for a period of six years from that date as provided under S.4(3) of the Act have been made by the Election Commission as per the said common order. Therefore, these Writ Petitions carrying challenge against the said common order are taken up for joint hearing and disposal.

2. The aforementioned Original Petitions were filed before the Kerala State Election Commission by the common first respondent against the petitioners, in these Writ Petitions. The common first respondent who filed the original petitions and the respondents therein who filed these writ petitions are referred to hereafter in this judgment as ‘common first respondent’ and ‘writ petitioners’ respectively unless otherwise specifically mentioned. The undisputed factual contentions in all the aforesaid original petitions can be encapsulated as follows:-

The Writ Petitioners and the common first respondent are members of the Panchayat and they contested the election to the Panchayat held in 2010 as candidates under the banner of Indian National Congress (for short ‘INC’) which is a constituent of the UDF coalition. All the members who returned to the Panchayat under the banner of UDF coalition except one Smt.Beena James belonged to INC. The remaining five members in the Panchayat contested and elected to the Panchayat under the banner of LDF coalition. Later, Smt.Beena James, the member belonging to the party Kerala Congress (Jacob) was elected as the President of the Panchayat and the consensus then arrived at among the District leadership of the UDF was that Smt.Beena James would hold the post of President only for a period of 2½ years and the remaining term of the Presidentship would be served by the nominee of INC. On 4.7.2013 Smt.Beena James resigned from the Presidentship to pave way for the Congress nominee to become the President of the Panchayat. Consequently, election to the post of President of the Panchayat was scheduled to be held on 29.7.2013. The name of Smt.Valsamma Bhaskaran belonging to INC was proposed and seconded by two members belonging to the said party and the name of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12014 of 2014 was proposed and seconded respectively by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12062 and 12032 of 2014. In the election held on 29.7.2013 the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12014 of 2014 defeated the said Smt.Valsamma Bhaskaran and became the President of the Panchayat.

3. The writ petitioners filed written statements in the respective Original Petitions and resisted the claims and contentions of the common first respondent except the factual contention that all the three petitioners cast votes in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12014 of 2014 and she became the President of the Panchayat. In fact, they raised certain common contentions. The contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as also the common first respondent can be summed up as follows:-

The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that a perusal of the original petitions referred above and the common order dated 3.5.2014 would reveal that essentially allegations were raised against the writ petitioners unde

























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