This judgment dismisses an election petition challenging the validity of the election petition form and signature count. The court held objections technical, affirmed the lower court's decision, and declined jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Original Petition was dismissed and the decision of the learned Munsiff was affirmed.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934
OP(C).No. 645 of 2012 (O)
EOP.5/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA
PETITIONER(S):
T.M.RAJAN, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.PAITHAL NAIR, THEKKEMANAYIL HOUSE POST MUTTUNGAL VAIKKILISSERI AMSOM VARISSYAKUNI DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST, KERALA STATE.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENT(S):
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 645/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
OP(C) NO. 645 OF 2012
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2012
JUDGMENT
The issue is covered by Saravanan A. Vs. P. Gopakumar alias Pallakattu Gopan and another [2008 (3) KHC 926] which follows the decision in M. Kamalam Vs. V.A.S. Muhammad [AIR 1978 SC 840] . I prefer to follow this decision than A. Mohammed Vs. Nalakath Soopy [1997 (1) KLT 697] which has been referred to in Saravanan 's case as well. Therefore the signature placed by the election petitioner at the foot of the copy of the election petition at every page was clearly referable to the entire copy preceding it and authenticated the copy to be true.
2
OP(C) No. 645/2012
verification portion is referable to the original verification as well as the copy.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the election petition was invalid due to the number of signatures on verification.
Whether this court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the objection raised regarding the form of the election petition is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saravanan A. Vs. P. Gopakumar alias Pallakattu Gopan and another [2008 (3) KHC 926]Followed¶32
Saravanan A. Vs. P. Gopakumar alias Pallakattu Gopan and another [2008 (3) KHC 926]
M. Kamalam Vs. V.A.S. Muhammad [AIR 1978 SC 840]Followed¶32
M. Kamalam Vs. V.A.S. Muhammad [AIR 1978 SC 840] · Who else cites this
A. Mohammed Vs. Nalakath Soopy [1997 (1) KLT 697]Distinguished¶32
A. Mohammed Vs. Nalakath Soopy [1997 (1) KLT 697]
T.M.RAJAN
K.K.SADASIVAN
KERALA STATE
SAJEER
SUNIL KUMAR
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. CHITAMBARESH
Parties & counsel
