ASHRAF KOKKUR Vs. K.V. ABDUL KHADER
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 29,2014
Ashraf Kokkur
Appellant
VERSUS
K.V. Abdul Khader
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AZHAR HUSSAIN V. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]SAHODRABAI RAI VS. RAM SINGH AHARWAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN VS. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
M KAMALAM VS. V A SYED MOHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAWALE VS. DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEB [REFERRED TO]
V S ACHUTHANANDAN VS. P J FRANCIS [REFERRED TO]
SYED DASTAGIR VS. T R GOPALAKRISHNASETTY [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER JAIN VS. SONIA GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
MAYUR LTD VS. VESSEL M V FORTUNE EXPRESS [REFERRED TO]
PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH VS. KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY [REFERRED TO]
G.M. SIDDESHWAR VS. PRASANNA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MADAN LAL AND ORS. VS. ROSHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-218] [REFERRED TO]MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU VS. PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH BAJAJ VS. SRI ARUN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY RAI AND ANOTHER VS. SHRI NARENDRA MODI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
SUBALA SAHOO VS. PRASANNA ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
TUKUNI SAHU VS. SURENDRA SINGH BHOI [LAWS(ORI)-2015-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ KUMAR SINHA VS. PREM KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
AKOIJAM MIRABAI DEVI VS. SAPAM KUNJAKESHWOR @ KEBA SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BABY AUGUSTIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, URUMBUKATTU VEETTIL, KADANADU KARA, KADANADU P.O., KADANADU VILLAGE VS. ALEX KOZHIKKOTTU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KOZHIKKOTTU HOUSE, KADANADU KARA, KADANADU P.O., KADANADU VILLAGE, PIN [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-203] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH KUMAR SOJATIA VS. DEVILAL DHAKAD [LAWS(MPH)-2023-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCHAND GUDDU VS. CHINTAMANI MALVIYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
BEDANTI TIWARI VS. BHAIYALAL RAJWADE AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA VS. MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR IMO SINGH VS. KHWAIRKAKPAM LOKEN SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SANASAM BIRA SINGH VS. NINGTHOUJAM MANGI [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
C R MAHESH VS. R RAMACHANDAN [LAWS(KER)-2017-10-212] [REFERRED TO]
SHUKRAJIT NAYAK VS. ROSHANLAL AGRAWAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
TAPEN SIGA VS. DIKTO YEKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
LANGPOKLAKPAM JAYANTAKUMAR SINGH VS. LAISHOM IBOMCHA SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEO NARAIN ARYA VS. RAVI JYOTI KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRASINH MANUBHA CHUDASAMA VS. BHAILAL KALUBHAI PANDAV & ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2018-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAIFUNEESSA W/O ABDUL LATHEEF VS. ASSAIN N K [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-122] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA YADAV VS. SANGHMITRA MAURYA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK RAJARAM RAUL VS. MANDAR PRAMOD VICHARE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU VS. PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The simple question arising for consideration in this case is whether the averments in the election petition disclose a cause of action as required under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'). Incidentally, it may be noted that the election petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2011, which reads as follows:
"J U D G M E N T
I.A. 4/11 is allowed. Election petition is dismissed in limine as it does not disclose a complete cause of action or a triable issue."
Of course, detailed reasons are given in the order dated 16.11.2011 in I.A. 4/2011, which is also under challenge in one of the appeals.
(2.)The sole ground in the election petition is that the respondent is disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, since he was holding the post of Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. To the extent relevant, the Article reads as follows:
"191. Disqualification for membership.-(1) xxx
(a) if he holds office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;"
(3.)The High Court has taken the view that the election petition does not clearly contain a pleading that the respondent holds an office of profit under the State Government. The pleading is only to the effect that the respondent holds an office of profit.
"J U D G M E N T
I.A. 4/11 is allowed. Election petition is dismissed in limine as it does not disclose a complete cause of action or a triable issue."
Of course, detailed reasons are given in the order dated 16.11.2011 in I.A. 4/2011, which is also under challenge in one of the appeals.
(2.)The sole ground in the election petition is that the respondent is disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, since he was holding the post of Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. To the extent relevant, the Article reads as follows:
"191. Disqualification for membership.-(1) xxx
(a) if he holds office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;"
(3.)The High Court has taken the view that the election petition does not clearly contain a pleading that the respondent holds an office of profit under the State Government. The pleading is only to the effect that the respondent holds an office of profit.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.