Important points:
If the elections are unduly protracted or obstructed on account of judicial interference in the intermediate stage of the election-Howsoever erroneous or howsoever malicious the decision of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination be, judicial intervention is not contemplated against the same at the intermediate stage of the election

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. The questions arising for consideration in these writ petitions being common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The matters relate to the election to Kainakary Grama Panchayat (the Panchayat). The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P. (C) No. 25786 of 2020.

2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 25786 of 2020 is a resident of Ward No. 3 of the Panchayat. He filed nomination to contest the election to the Panchayat from Ward No. 2. His nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the part of electoral roll produced by the petitioner along with the nomination was not certified by the Assistant Returning Officer in terms of Section 55(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act). Ext.P3 is the decision of the Returning Officer. The case of the petitioner is that there is no such requirement in Section 55(7) of the Act and the requirement in Section 52(5) of the Act is only that where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall be produced either along with the nomination or at the time of scrutiny. It is also the case of the petitioner that since he has produced along with the nomination the relevant part of the electoral roll of Ward No. 3, his nomination was in order. It is stated by the petitioner that the Returning Officer has rejected the nominations of all candidates of Ward No. 2 except that of two candidates belonging to the political party CPI(M) and immediately after rejection of the nominations of the candidates, one among the candidates fielded by the political party CPI(M) as their dummy candidate has withdrawn his nomination and the Returning Officer has consequently declared the remaining candidate namely, the third respondent, as duly elected. Ext.P7 is the certificate issued by the Returning Officer in this regard. Exts.P3 and P7 are under challenge in the writ petition. The facts in W.P. (C) No. 25768 of 2020 are identical. The petitioner therein is another resident of Ward No. 3 who filed nomination to contest the election to the Panchayat from Ward No. 2. His nomination was also rejected on the same ground. The grounds raised and relief sought by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 25768 of 2020 are also one and the same.

3. The main contention taken by the third respondent in the counter affidavits filed in the matters is that the writ petitions are not maintainable in the light of the bar under Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution. As regards the merits of the matters, the contention of the third respondent is that the decision of the Returning Officer in rejecting nominations of the petitioners is in order, since it was obligatory for the petitioners in terms of the provisions of the Act to produce an attested copy of the electoral roll of the constituency where they reside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission as also the learned counsel for the third respondent, the returned candidate.

5. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 and Manda Jaganath vs. K.S. Rathnam and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3600, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that what is banned in terms of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution is not anything whatsoever done, or directed by the Election Commission, but everything the Election Commission does or directs in furtherance of the election, not contrariwise. According to the learned counsel, if a functionary under the Election Commission does something to stultify the election as done in the case on hand by rejecting the nominations of all candidates except that of the candidates belonging to one political party, the bar under the s