In a writ petition challenging an order on election petition grounds of double voting, the High Court at Ernakulam granted permission for the petitioner to examine documents and ballot papers to adjudicate the matter.
Petitioner was granted permission to sort out documents in the presence of counsel and the Junior Superintendent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1929
WP(C).No. 25388 of 2007(V) -------------------------EOP.162/2005 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONER:
-----------NAFEESA PALAT, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.MAJEED PALAT, KODIYATHUR AMSOM, PANNIKKODE DESOM & POST, MUKKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 25388/07
Appendix
Petitioner's Exts:
Ext.P1 true copy of the IA 2604/06 in EOP.162/2005
Ext.P2 copy of the affidavit filed along with I.A. 2841/06 in EOP.162/2005
Ext.P3 true copy of the order in I.A. 2841/06 in EOP.162/2005 dated 3.7.2007.
M.N.Krishnan, J.
======================== W.P(C).No.25388 of 2007
========================
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Kozhikode II in I.A.No.2841 of 2006 in E.O.P.No.162 of 2005. As per Ext.P2 application, the writ petitioner seeks permission to sort out the documents in the presence of the counsel for the respondents and the Junior Superintendent. The Election Petition is filed on the ground of double voting that 12 persons have exercised their franchise in two booths which is against the provisions of law and that those votes have to be declared as void, which may have direct bearing in the result of the election.
WP(C) 25388/07 -: 2 :-
be perused by the parties. In case of double voting the factors to be established are that the name of person figures in two voters list, secondly that the identity of the person is the same and lastly that he has exercised his franchise in both the booths or wards as the case may be. So, unless there is prima facie satisfactory evidence to establish that the names of alleged persons occur in the voters list of two wards and that their identify is the same, the third question will not arise for consideration. Therefore, when prima facie the court is satisfied about the first two ingredients then necessarily the court will have to permit examination of ballot papers for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter. I make it clear that the court can insist for evidence for prima facie satisfaction and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.Krishnan, Judge.
ess 14/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to sort out election documents in the presence of counsel and officers for investigating double voting allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Apex CourtDistinguished¶26
Nafeesa Palat
Uma Unnikrishnan
Venakkatti Thodi Kamala
Padmavathi
Abdul Rahiman
District Collector
M.N.Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
