JUDGEMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY, J. -
(1.)This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25766 of 2020 against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2020 dismissing the writ petition and declining the reliefs sought for by the appellant to quash Ext. P4 order passed by the Returning Officer, Aliparamba Grama Panchayat rejecting the nomination
submitted by the appellant to Ward No.2 of Anamangad constituency
on the ground that the appellant has not signed in the column to be
filled in as Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It is, thus, challenging
the legality and correctness of the judgment, this appeal is preferred.
(2.)The learned single Judge, after taking into account Article 243-O of the Constitution of India dealing with bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters to the Panchayat and following the
principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v.
The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal,
Salem District [AIR 1952 SC 64] and Mohinder Singh Gill and
another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
others [AIR 1978 SC 851] refused to entertain the writ petition
holding that the sustainability or otherwise of Ext. P4 order passed by
the Returning Officer cannot be considered in writ proceedings while
the election is in progress and that the writ petition is devoid of merits,
and therefore, left open the liberty of the appellant to challenge the
decision impugned in an Election Petition instituted in accordance with
the relevant statute.
(3.)The formidable contention advanced by the appellant is that as per Section 55(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
(hereinafter called 'the Act, 1994), the Returning Officer shall not
reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which has not
of a substantial nature. The sum and substance of the contention
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the provision
clearly establishes that a minor defect like the instant one, which does
not, in any way, affect the validity of the candidature of the appellant,
cannot be used by the Returning Officer for the rejection of the
nomination paper. It was also submitted that in order to identify that
the appellant is a Scheduled Caste, he has produced necessary
certificate from the appropriate statutory authority and therefore,
mere absence of a signature in the declaration column is not at all a
major or substantive defect so as to reject the same. It was further
submitted that while a nomination is submitted, the Returning Officer
was duty bound to take into account the defects, if any, in the
nomination and issue necessary guidance to the candidates to rectify
the defects and then permit re-submit the same. It was also pointed
out that since the appellant belongs to a socially and financially
backward section of the society, he is entitled for judicious
consideration as guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the
hyper-technical objections like the instant one can result only in the
deprival of the legitimate democratic right of the appellant. Therefore,
he sought interference of the writ Court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.