This original petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is filed by the 1^st respondent in

O.P. (Election) No.5 of 2015 on the files of the

Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod, seeking to set

aside Ext.P3 order passed by the court below on the

preliminary point, holding that the original petition

is maintainable under law. Brief material facts for

the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

2.

Petitioner herein is the 1^st respondent in the

above specified original petition. First respondent

herein is the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent is the

2^nd respondent in the original petition before the court

below. Petitioner and respondents were candidates

contested from Uliyathadukka Constituency (Ward No.17)

of Madhur Grama Panchayat, Kasaragod District, in the

general election held on 02.11.2015. Petitioner was

the official candidate of the BJP, and she was elected

from the above Ward in the election. After counting of

the votes, the returning officer declared that the

petitioner herein and the 1^st respondent secured equal

number of valid votes, i.e., 528 votes each. Since

there was equal votes, the returning officer opted to

go for lots and the lot was taken in favour of the

3

petitioner and accordingly, she was declared elected.

Aggrieved, the election petition was filed mainly with

the contention of double voting. A counter statement

was filed denying the allegations and challenging the

maintainability of Ext.P1 Election Petition, evident

from Ext.P2.

3.

According to the petitioner herein, the

Election Petition is defective for the reason that,

under Sec.91(1)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,

1994, an election petition shall be signed by the

petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for verification of the

pleadings. On a reading of the verification in page

Nos.7 and 8 of the election petition, it is clear that

the same is not verified as per Order 6, Rule 15 of the

CPC, and the failure on the part of the petitioner to

state which paragraph of the petition is true to his

personal knowledge and which on information, is fatal,

and therefore, the election petition itself is

defective. It is also submitted that, the object of

requiring verification of the election petition is to

clearly fix the responsibility for the averments and

4

allegations in the petition on the persons signing the

verification.

4.

So also, Sec.91(2) of Act, 1994 stipulates

that, any schedule or annexure to the petition shall

also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the

same manner as the petition. According to the

petitioner, three annexures submitted along with the

election petition clearly show that none of them are

verified at all, which is flagrant violation of

Sec.91(2) of Act, 1994, which cannot be cured at all.

So also, Sec.89(2) of Act, 1994 is not complied with.

That apart, it is submitted that, in the election

petition, at paragraphs 4 and 5, there is an attempt to

allege double voting. But, there is no allegation

falling under Sec.102(d)(iii) of Act, 1994, and there

is no specific allegation in Ext.P1 election petition

that the alleged double votes were casted in favour of

this petitioner, which led to the equalization of votes

and ultimately led to her success by way of lot, and

further that, there is no allegation in Ext.P1 falling

under Sec.103 of Act, 1994.

5.

However, the court below has taken the view

that, even if any minor omission is found, which is not

material and the substantial compliance alone is

5

sufficient, and accordingly it was found that the 1^st

respondent has complied with Sections 89, 90 and 91 of

Act, 1994, and therefore, the election petition is

maintainable.

6.

The paramount contention advanced by the

petitioner, as I have quoted above, is relying upon the

provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and

the failure on the part of the 1^st respondent to verify

the pleadings and