Disposed

Mathew Lalson v. Kerala State Election Commission & Ors.

Kerala HC10 Mar 2008WP(C)/4957/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The mandate direction sua sponte for the petitioner to the petitioner to file the Election Commission named in the judgment. The ECI has been directed to dispose of the matter within two months. 36 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The case was disposed of on merits without going into the other grounds raised in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction. She was the submitted

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Election Commission within 7 days; the Commission directed to dispose of the petition within two months

Mathew Lalson Vs Kerala State Election Commission & Ors. — Election Law | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 4957 of 2008(M)

PETITIONER:

MATHEW LALSON, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, NISHA BHAVANAM, KACHERRY MUKKU KUNDARA, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

KUNDARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNDRA, KUNDRA P.O. KOLLAM-691 501.

¶15

RUDOLF ANTONY KAYALVARATH THETTIVILA VEEDU NANDIRIKKAL, KANJIRACODE CHERRY MULAVANA VILLAGE, KUNDARA P.O. KOLLAM-691 501.

¶16

R1 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R2 BY SMT. MIJI JOHN SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 4957 of 2008

¶20

Dated, this the 10^th day of March, 2008

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

I have heard the submissions of Shri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel for the 1^st respondent and also Shri.P.V.Lonachan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

Learned standing counsel for the Election Commission submits that at the time when the petition came up for admission, the Election Commission had not received any petition filed under Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Act requesting that the 3^rd respondent is disqualified. But later on 14/02/2008, a petition along with a stay petition were received by post. On receiving the petition by post, the 1^st respondent has sent communication No.918/K/2008/SEC dated 19/02/2008 to the petitioner informing him that the petition sent by him by post will not be entertained as a petition under Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Act, since the Commission in terms of Section 36 is deemed to be a Civil Court and exercises the powers of the Civil Court complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The communication also informed the petitioner that the Commission regulates its own procedure for filing petition before it. The communication,

¶24

WP(C) No. 4957/2008

¶25

-2-

¶26

accordingly, directed the petitioner to present the petition either before the Office of the State Election Commission by person or through counsel. Shri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is yet to get instructions from his client as to whether the communication dated 19/02/2008 has been received by the petitioner. As directed by me, Shri.Murali Purushothaman has handed over a copy of the above communication to Shri.T.M.Abdul Latiff. The above being the fact situation obtaining in this case, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the other grounds raised in the writ petition. I direct the petitioner to file his complaint against the 3^rd respondent under Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Election Commission either in person or through counsel as directed by the Election Commission in their communication No. 918/K/2008/SEC dated 19/02/2008 within 7 days of his receiving a copy of this judgment. If a petition is presented by the petitioner as directed by the Election Commission in the aforesaid communication, the Election Commission will register the petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months of registering the petition.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶29

Mathew Lalson v. Kerala State Election Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Lalson v. Kerala State Election Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyril Britto Vs Chacko Thomas

Biju Lal Vs the District Collector & Ors.

Ashoken B. Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Bharathi Airtel Ltd. Vs Jana Jagruthi Vedike

T.Bose Vs T.P.Kuttappan

K.M.George Vs the Secretary,Municipal Office,Kanhangad