BASIL GEORGE Vs. SHAJI SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an elector seek impleadment in an election petition is the question that arises for consideration?

(2.) The petitioner had exercised his franchise in the election in Ward No.23 of the Perumbavoor Municipality. The 1st respondent, a contesting candidate, has filed O.P. (Election) No.2 of 2021 before the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor, to set aside the election of the returned candidate and to declare him as the returned candidate. The petitioner has learnt through his friend that the 1st respondent has also indulged in corrupt practices, by including voters list who are not permanent residents of the ward and double voting; therefore, he is not entitled to be declared the returned candidate. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.8 of 2021 to get himself impleaded as the additional 5th respondent in the election petition, as provided under Sec. 175 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for brevity referred to as 'Act'). The 1st respondent has objected to the above application. The court below has, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, dismissed Ext.P2 application, holding that Sec. 165 of the Act permits only contesting candidates to be made parties in an election petition. As the petitioner is not a contesting candidate, Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has no application. A co-joint reading of Ss. 165 and 175 of the Act enables a third party to be impleaded, when any candidate other than the returned candidate seeks to get declared elected. The impugned Ext.P3 order is passed without a proper understanding of the provisions of the Act. Hence the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri.Karol Mathews Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.