Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
MADHU RAJ – Appellant
Versus
RAJU CHACKO – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election disputes arise from the petitioners' claims of disqualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. the court emphasizes the importance of proving dates of knowledge regarding disqualification. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. limitation period for disqualification petitions starts upon knowledge of disqualification. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. the need for applications to indicate circumstances justifying delays in filing. (Para 10) |
| 5. the court quashed prior orders and directed appropriate actions by the election commission. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.43095/2024, 43062/2024]
In both these writ petitions, the respective petitioners are the respondents before the State Election Commission of Kerala, in two separate proceedings initiated at the instance of the 1st respondent in both these writ petitions. The original petitions were filed under Section 4 (i) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 , read with Rule 4A(1) of Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 . W.P(C) No.43062/2024, pertains to O.P. No.32/2024, whereas W.P(C) No.43095/2024 pertains to O.P. No.31/2024.
2. The facts which led to the above original petitions and these
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
