AHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. ALI
LAWS(KER)-2003-3-117
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 26,2003

AHAMMEDKUTTY Appellant
VERSUS
ALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner in an Election Petition filed under S.87 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ("Act" for short) is the revision petitioner. He filed the Original Petition to declare that the election held to Constituency No. 4 of Urngattiri Grama Panchayat on 25th September 2000 is void on the ground that his nomination was improperly rejected. The Trial Court allowed the Election Petition and declared that the election of the first respondent was void. The first respondent, the returned candidate, appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the Original Petition. That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: On 1st September 2000 at 1.25 p.m. the revision petitioner filed his nomination before the third respondent for contesting as a candidate for Thacharma, Constituency No. 4 of Urngattiri Grama Panchayat, which was accepted by the third respondent. According to the revision petitioner, thereafter he filed another nomination before the third respondent for contesting as a candidate from Therattammal, Constituency No. 12 of the same panchayat, which was received by the third respondent. The scrutiny of the nomination papers were conducted by the second respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 2nd September 2000. According to the revision petitioner he was told that both the nominations were accepted and he withdrew his nomination from Constituency No. 12 on 4th September 2000. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter he was informed that his nomination filed for Constituency No. 4 was rejected. It is also averred that the nomination for Constituency No. 4 was filed earlier in point of time and that was improperly rejected without consulting the revision petitioner or without giving an opportunity to him to elect either the two and hence the rejection of his nomination was improper. So, the Election Petition for declaring that the election held from Constituency No. 4 is void.
(3.) The first respondent, the Returning Officer, filed a written statement admitting that the revision petitioner filed two nominations, one for contesting from Constituency No. 4 and another for contesting from Constituency No. 12. It was contended that both nominations were submitted at 1.25 p.m. on 1st September 2000. The nomination filed by the revision petitioner for Constituency No. 4 was kept aside and it was taken along with the nomination submitted for Constituency No. 12 and both the nominations were scrutinised simultaneously. At that time the revision petitioner did not inform the Returning Officer his intention to contest from Constituency No. 4. It was further contended that since the nominations for both constituencies have been filed at the same time and it was not possible to decide which one was filed earlier in point of time, the second respondent contacted the District Election Officer and as per his directions, the nomination filed for Constituency No. 12 was accepted and the one filed for Constituency No. 4 was rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.