IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 8(7)(a) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules 1995, which mandates drawing lots and declaring the person whose name is first drawn as elected in the event of a tie between two candidates.

JUDGMENT :

The above writ petition is filed with the following reliefs:

“i. call for records leading to Ext.P2 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P2 in so far as it declares the 5th respondent as elected to the post of Chairperson of Piravom Municipality.

ii. declare that in view of the fact that petitioner's name was drawn in the lot by the 2nd respondent, petitioner is elected as Chairperson of Piravom Municipality in view of Rule 8(7)(a) of Kerala Municipality (Election of President and Vice President) Rules ,1995.

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to declare the petitioner as elected as Chairperson of Piravom Municipality in view of the fact that petitioner's name was drawn in the lot as per Rule 8(7)(a) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of President and Vice President) Rules 1995.

iv. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

v. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

vi. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.”(SIC)

2. The post of the Chairperson of Piravom Municipality fell vacant on resignation of the Chairperson on 16.01.2024. The 1st respondent Election Commission, has nominated the 2nd respondent as the Returning Officer for conducting the election to the post of Chairperson of Piravom Municipality. The 2nd respondent as Returning Officer has fixed the election on 31.01.2024 at 11 am in the Municipal office. Ext.P1 is the notice dated 19.01.2024 fixing the election on 31.01.2024 at 11:00 a.m. It is submitted that there are 27 municipal councillors in Piravom Municipality. All the 27 municipal councillors attended the election pursuant to Ext.P1, is the submission. It is submitted that the Left Democratic Front (LDF) is having a total number of 14 councillors out of 27 councillors and the United Democratic Front (UDF) is having a total number of 13 councillors.

3. In the election to the post of Chairperson of Municipal Council held on 31.01.2024, the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent -Jincy Raju, were the candidates contesting the election to the post of Chairperson of Piravom Municipality. Since there were no other candidates contested for the post of Chairperson of Piravom Municipality, as per Rule 8 of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules 1995, (for short, “Rules, 1995”) a voting was conducted. After the voting had taken place, it was found that both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent obtained 13 votes each and one vote of one LDF councillors was declared as invalid. Therefore, both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent got equal number of votes i.e., 13 votes.

4. It is submitted that in accordance with Rule 8(7)(a) of the Rules, 1995, if there are only two candidates and in the event of both candidates obtaining equal valid votes, the Returning Officer has to draw lots in the meeting and declare the person whose name is first drawn as elected. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, who is the Returning Officer, has decided to draw lots for electing Chairperson of Piravom Municipality since both the petitioner and the 5th respondent obtained 13 votes each. In the draw of lots, the name of the petitioner was drawn first. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per the Rules, 1995, the petitioner should have been declared as elected Chairperson of Piravom Municipality. Ext.P2 is the minutes. However, the Returning Officer after recording that the petitioner’s name was drawn in the lot decided that since the petitioner's name was drawn in the lot, she is to be excluded and the 5th respondent was declared as Chairperson of the Municipality.

5. In Ext.P2, it is clearly stated that both the petitioner and the 5th respondent obtained equal number of votes and the petitioner’s name was drawn in the lot first. It is an admitted case that the petitioner’s name was drawn in the lot first.