JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Manathavadi in OP(Election) No.3/2021, the 1st respondent before the court below has filed the original petition. The respondents are the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 before the court below.

2. The facts leading to the impugned order are: the

1st respondent has filed the above election petition against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5, challenging the election of the petitioner to Ward No.6 in Kaithakolli in Thavinjal Grama Panchayath held on 10.12.2020. The 1st respondent has filed the election petition, inter-alia, contending that the petitioner was not entitled to contest the election as he had failed to show the details of his loan account in Form 2A and that he had a loan liability in the Kerala Housing Board, Meenangadi branch, and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him. The 1st respondent also alleged that the petitioner was the President of a Co- operative Society and he had obtained advance by accepting 5 works, but he did not complete the works and failed to show the same in Form 24. Even though the 1st respondent raised the above objections before the Returning Officer, the same was not considered. Hence, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P1 election petition. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the election petition and denying the allegations in the election petition. It is inter-alia, contended that under Section 52(1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (in short, “Act”), the returned candidate has to only furnish details as stated in the form and manner prescribed under the Act. The non-furnishing of details of arrears in Form 2A is not a ground to file the election petition. The position is answered by this Court in M.G.Joseph vs. C.V.Kuriakose and another [2007 (1) KHC 659]. Likewise the petitioner has clearly stated about the arrears payable to the Kerala State Housing Board in the nomination that was filed before the Returning Officer. Therefore, the omission to mention about this aspect in Form 2A is inconsequential. Thus, the election petition is unsustainable in law. There is no verification in the election petition as prescribed under Section 90 (1)(c) of the Act. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, has rejected Ext.P2 preliminary objection. Ext.P3 is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.P.K.Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.Divakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext.P3 order.

5. The definite case of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner has failed to disclose his loan liability, that he was the President of a Co-operative Society and he had undertaken five works and obtained advance, which have not revealed in Form 2A. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a fake declaration.

6. The defense of the petitioner in Ext.P2 preliminary objection is that the omission to state the arrears in Form 2A is not a ground to set aside the election. Likewise, the dues payable to the Kerala State Housing Board is not arrears to the Government and the establishment is not a Government undertaking. As the 1st respondent has failed to plead the details of the work done by the petitioner and has not verified the election petition as contemplated under law, the election petition is to be dismissed.

7. The court below, after going through the rival pleadings, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, has held that the election petition cannot be rejected at threshold under Order 7 Rule 11A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the allegations and counter allegations raised by both sides are a matter of evidence.

On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, I do not find any error or illegality in Ext.P3 order, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court completely endorse