Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
President and Secretary of the Haritha Karma Sena – Appellant
Versus
3rd respondent Panchayat – Respondent
WP(C) No. 28588 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Names not specified]
For the Respondents: [Names not specified]
The availability of alternative statutory remedies precluded interference in the cancellation of election results by the court.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 191 - Quashing of election - Petitioners challenged cancellation of their election as President and Secretary of Haritha Karma Sena by Panchayat. Court found substantive grounds for dismissal based on the unavailability of extraordinary circumstances and alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioners. (Paras 2, 6, 9)
(B) Elections - Validity - The Returning Officer's actions in disqualifying candidates without notice were deemed arbitrary, but the availability of alternative remedies precluded direct intervention by the court. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners elected as officers from Kudumbasree units were denied recognition due to alleged irregularities and mismanagement during elections.
Findings of Court:
Court emphasized the unavailability of extraordinary circumstances and alternative statutory remedies for petitioners.
Issues: Legality of cancellation of election and alternative remedies available to petitioners were key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that existing statutory remedies precluded the writ petition's entertainment; disputes were better suited for resolution through other channels.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election held for haritha karma sena office bearers faced cancellation. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's hearing included arguments from both parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasized alternative statutory remedies and lack of extraordinary circumstances. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. statutory remedies and issues regarding the election process were key. (Para 8) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 28588 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash decision No. 16 in Ext.P8 decision register of the 3rd respondent Panchayat.
2. The petitioners are the President and Secretary of the Haritha Karma Sena (Green Army) of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The petitioners were selected from the Kudumbasree units concerned and are working under the supervision of the 3rd respondent and the Kudumbasree units. As per the bye-laws of the Haritha Karma Sena, two persons have to be selected to every ward from the Kudumbasree cluster units concerned. After their selection, they were given training as per Ext.P1 bye-laws. During the functioning of the Haritha Karma Sena, on the allegation of mismanagement, some office bearers resigned from their posts. Consequently, the 4th respondent appointed a Returning Officer to conduct a fresh election. During this period, few Kudumbasree cluster units were disaffiliated on the allegation of mismanagement.
On 27.06.2025, the petitioners were elected as the President and Secretary of the Haritha Karma Sena in the election. Surprisingly, by decision No.16 in Ext.P8 decision register, the election has been cancelled. Decision No.16 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 to
5, they have contended that the election was cancelled by the Panchayat committee, as it was not validly conducted. The Returning Officer had acted arbitrarily by disqualifying certain candidates without giving notice to them. There is no illegality in decision No.16 in Ext.P8 decision register.
Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 reiterated their contentions in the respective pleadings.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj, 1994 and contended that, any decision taken by a Panchayat can be cancelled and suspended by the Government either on its own motion or on any petition received from a citizen. In view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners, this Court may not entertain this writ petition, especially since there are disputed questions of fact. She relied on the decision in Padmanabhan P.K.vs. Deputy Director of Panchayaths ( 2024 (2) KHC 280 ) to fortify her contention.
7. The crux of the dispute in the writ petition relates to decision No.16 in Ext.P8 decision register.
8. By the impugned decision, the Panchayat has resolved to cancel the election held to elect office bearers of the Haritha Karma Sena of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. In the said meeting, the Panchayat found that the Returning Officer had abused his position and arbitrarily exercised his power by disqualifying candidates without notice to them.
9. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 which reads as follows:
“191. Power of cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc. -
(1) Government may either suo moto or, on a reference by President, Secretary or a member, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or very a resolution passed or a decision taken by the panchayat if in their opinion such decision or resolution –
(a) is not legally passed or taken; or (b) is in excess of the powe
