O R D E R

The challenge in this civil revision petition is against the order of the Munsiff Court, Punalur in O.P.(Election)No.4/2010 setting aside the petitioner's election to Ward No.3 of Thenmala Grama Panchayat, as affirmed by the District Court, Kollam in Election(Appeal) No.31/2012. The essential facts are as under;

The petitioner and the respondent had contested in the election to Ward No.3 of Thenmala Grama Panchayat held on 23/10/2010. In the election, the petitioner secured the maximum number of votes and was declared elected. Thereupon, the respondent filed the election petition contending that the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election, he having failed to pay the amounts due to the Government. It was also alleged that the petitioner had suppressed this crucial factor in the declaration submitted along with the nomination. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the complainant's side. For the defence, the petitioner himself gave evidence as DW1, but no documents were marked on his side. The documents produced through third parties were marked by the court as Exts.X1 to X7. On careful anlysis of the evidence and consideration of the legal contentions, the trial court found the petitioner to be disqualified from contesting the election, the Form 2A submitted by him along with his nomination being false and the petitioner having failed to disclose the penalty imposed on him. Consequently, the petitioner's election was declared to be void in view of Section 102(1)(a) and 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The appellate court, on re-appreciation of evidence and reconsideration of the contentions raised, found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment.

2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner confined her arguments to the inadequacy of pleadings in the election petition. The contention is that, being an election petition, the respondent was bound to plead full particulars of the alleged disqualification. The absence of material particulars in an election petition being of a fatal defect, the courts below ought to have dismissed the petition. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.H.Musthaffa v. M.P.Varghese and Others [(1999) 8 SCC 692], Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan(Smt) and Another [(2004) 4 SCC 522], and that of this Court in Byju T.D. v. Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan [2007 (2) KLT 921] and Lucy Joseph v. Elikutty James and Another [2009 KHC 4431].

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent asserted that necessary particulars have been stated in the election petition. Moreover, the contention regarding inadequacy of pleadings having been considered and rejected by the courts below, no interference is warranted in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The legal position that an election petition should contain the full particulars of the ground on which the election is sought to be set aside, is well settled. The precedents cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are also to the same effect. The question therefore is whether the election petition contains the necessary particulars. A reading of the election petition reveals specific averments regarding the default committed by the petitioner with respect to the fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in MC No.16/2008. It is also stated that the petitioner having failed to pay/remit the fine amount, revenue recovery proceedings under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act had been initiated and the petitioner failed to pay the amount even within the time stipulated in the notice.

6. As the above averments contains the necessary particulars, the contention regarding inadequacy of pleadings was rightly rejected by the courts below. Being so, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

In the result