IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Deekshith V.R., S/o.Ram Mohan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 42965 Of 2023
Decided on : 29-01-2024
Resignation Dispute - Panchayat Election - Sec.155 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules 2000 - Sec.155, Rule 5
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a returned candidate in a Panchayat election, was alleged to have submitted a resignation letter under duress. The State Election Commission dismissed the petitioner's application without allowing cross-examination of the Secretary who gave a statement about the resignation letter's acceptance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Election Commission should have followed a transparent procedure and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The impugned order was set aside, and the Election Commission was directed to reconsider the matter and allow the petitioner to cross-examine the Secretary.
Issues: Dispute over resignation acceptance, lack of transparent procedure, denial of opportunity for cross-examination
Ratio Decidendi: The Election Commission should follow a transparent procedure and allow the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses in resignation disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to set aside the impugned order and reconsider the matter, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the Secretary.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner herein was the returned candidate in the election to Ward No.14 of Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat held on 14.12.2020, the result of which was declared on 16.12.2020. Challenging the election of the petitioner, an Original Petition was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod as O.P.No.5/2021. The Original petition was dismissed, as evident by Ext.P1 order.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Mogar Caste of Hindu Religion which is included in the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Kerala and he contested in the election in a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. It is also submitted that the mother tongue of the petitioner is Kannada and he does not know to read and write Malayalam. It is further submitted that, on 12.10.2023, the signature of the petitioner was obtained in a paper under threat and he was made to accompany a group of persons to the office of Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat to hand over the same to the Secretary of the Panchayat. Later, it was submitted that the petitioner realised that it was a resignation letter. According to the petitioner, the entries in the above form were made by someone else as the petitioner cannot read and write Malayalam. On accepting the above form, a copy of which was subsequently obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the Secretary issued a receipt to the persons who accompanied the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the letter of resignation obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The Secretary of the Panchayat, on accepting Ext.P2, forwarded it to the State Election Commission, on the same day itself, as evident by Ext.P3. The true copy of the intimation dated 12/10/2023 issued to the State Election Commission by the fifth respondent is produced as Exhibit P3 in the writ petition. Immediately thereupon the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the State Election Commission, as evident by Ext.P4. It is submitted that P4 representation was submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules 2000, [for short, Rules 2000], which stipulates that any person having a dispute regarding the resignation of the President or the Vice President or the Member may within 15 days from the date on which the resignation is deemed to have taken effect prefer a petition before the State Election Commission for its decision and the decision of the Commission thereon shall be final. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted a complaint before the Station House Officer, Kasaragod, as evident by Ext.P5, stating that he was forced to submit the resignation letter without understanding the contents of the same.
Ext.P5(a) is the receipt issued by the officer concerned on getting Ext.P5. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Secretary of the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat on 16.10.2023 as evidenced by Ext.P6.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was called upon for a hearing by the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent now passed Ext.P7 order by which Ext.P4 application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat.
5. The short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P7 is an order passed without adverting the contentions of the petitioner. But the Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent made available the statement given by the petitioner and the Secretary of the Panchayat.
6. Sec.155 of the Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act, 1994') deals with the resignation of the President, Vice President or members. It will be better to extract Sec. 155 of the Act, 1994.
(1) The President or Vice President or any other member of a
The Election Commission should ensure transparency and provide an opportunity for cross-examination in resignation disputes.
Strict compliance with resignation procedures under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is mandatory; failure to adhere renders the resignation invalid, especially when disputed.
The court held the Election Commission lacks authority to annul post-election results, emphasizing disputes must be resolved in civil court per Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Once a member attracts disqualification under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, they are disqualified from continuing as a member, irrespective of subsequent election....
The court affirmed that procedural compliance in no-confidence motions is paramount, reinforcing the legitimacy of the State Election Commission's authority.
Point of Law : In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute, after election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to ....
The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to statutory limitations and pursuing alternative legal remedies for challenging election disputes, while also emphasizing the requirement of pub....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.