SASI V. C. Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
LAWS(KER)-2020-11-84
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 27,2020

Sasi V. C. Appellant
VERSUS
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION Respondents




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.