The court dismissed an original petition challenging the maintainability of an election petition in a Panchayat election. The court held that filing with the Head Clerk was valid even during judicial leave and minor stitching errors did not vitiate the process.
The original petition was dismissed, and the order of the court below was confirmed.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934
OP(C).No. 1202 of 2012 (O) -------------------------OP(ELECTION)NO.14/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA
PETITIONER(S):
SUJANA.P.,, AGED 37 YEARS W/O VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT PARIYARAM, PARIYARAM P.O TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.J.VIMAL
RESPONDENT(S): --------------
RAMANI.K.E, D/O NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT PARIYARAM, PARIYARAM P.O TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT 670503 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER BY ADV. SMT.RAJESWARI ANIL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C)NO.1202/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY O FTHE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HEAD CLERK OF THE COURT ON 25-11-2010 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION PETITION FURNISHED TO THIS PETITIONER EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 03-03-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ELECTION PETITIONER EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P (ELE) NO 14 OF 2010 DATED 0701-2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL
V. CHITAMBARESH, J.
O.P.(C) No.1202 of 2012
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2012
Judgment
The election of the petitioner from Ward No.XV in Pariyaram
Grama Panchayat has been called in question by the respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). The maintainability of the election petition was
questioned by the petitioner on the following grounds:
(i) The election petition was not presented in court as specified under Section 89(1) of the Act.
(ii) The copy of the election petition served on the petitioner vastly differs from the election petition filed by the respondent in court.
that it was presented in time personally by the respondent on 25.11.2010. The same was received by the Head Clerk attached to the Registry of the court as the learned Munsiff was on casual leave. The fact that the learned Munsiff was on casual leave is well evident from the endorsement made on the election petition
OP(C) 1202/2012 2
itself. The respondent had also remitted the security amount of Rs.500/- on 25.11.2010 itself as revealed from the endorsement on the election petition. The election petition was returned for some clarification and the same was represented on 30.11.2010 on which day the court below ordered notice to the petitioner. The presentation of the election petition to the Registry of the court was found to be sufficient in the decision in Sheodan
Singh v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1969 SC 1024). The petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the Head Clerk was incompetent to receive the election petition on that date when the learned Munsiff was on casual leave. The petitioner had also not succeeded in proving that there was another Chief Ministerial Officer competent to receive election petition. I am satisfied that the election petition presented before the Head Clerk when the learned Munsiff was on casual leave is in order.
OP(C) 1202/2012
3
stitching which was quite unintentional. The court below has inter alia observed as follows in this regard:
“It is seen that there is absolutely no difference in copy served to the respondent and original before the court. It is relevant to note that the copy of the election petition served on the respondent need not be identical except that there cannot be any difference between the copy and original. But one cannot say that because of the mistake in arranging the page in the election petition and difference in the copy, copy served on the respondent is not exact of the copy of the election petition ..........”.
The petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
(i) Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani (AIR 1984 SC 956).
(ii) Devaki v. Kaveri Amma (1996(1) KLT 130).
(iii) Kaveri Amma v. Devaki (1996(2) KLT 189).
These are all cases where the copy vastly differed from the original whereas the contents in the copy and the original in the present case are one and same. The mistake was committed probably by the clerk of the counsel in stitching the election petition. That cannot be stated to be a vital defect to non-suit the
OP(C) 1202/2012
4
election petitioner/respondent at the threshold.
V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE.
srd
OP(C) 1202/2012 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether filing the election petition with the Head Clerk while the Munsiff was on casual leave was legally sufficient.
Whether a discrepancy in page stitching between the original and served copy of the election petition renders it non-maintainable.
Whether the petitioner's objections to the election petition's maintainability should be decided at this preliminary stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheodan Singh v. Mohan LalApplied¶29
Sheodan Singh v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1969 SC 1024) · Who else cites this
Rajendra Singh v. Usha RaniDistinguished¶37
Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rani (AIR 1984 SC 956) · Who else cites this
Devaki v. Kaveri AmmaDistinguished¶38
Devaki v. Kaveri Amma (1996(1) KLT 130)
Kaveri Amma v. DevakiDistinguished¶39
Kaveri Amma v. Devaki (1996(2) KLT 189)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUJANA.P.
RAMANI.K.E
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. CHITAMBARESH
Parties & counsel
