Disposed

Pushpavalli v. the Returning Officer, Kudumbasree

Kerala HC9 Jul 2012WP(C)/9669/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition regarding an alleged vitiated election to the Grama Panchayat. The high court directed the second respondent to decide the election dispute within four weeks of the production of this judgment and the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to take final decision on the election dispute within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment along with writ petition.

Pushpavalli Vs the Returning Officer, Kudumbasree — Election Law | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9669 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PUSHPAVALLI,

¶8

W/O. RAMANKUTTY, EZHUTHACHAN VEETTIL, PATHAPPIRIYAM EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶10

SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE RETURNING OFFICER, CDS KUDUMBASREE (ELECTION)

¶13

OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM-676 542.

¶14

THE DISTRICT ELECTORAL OFFICER KUDUMBASREE (ELECTION)

¶15

OFFICE OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶17

SUNDARI

¶18

W/O. PARAMESWARAN, MANKUNNAN HOUSE, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶19

AYSHABI

¶20

W/O. VEERANKUTTY, CHERUKAD HOUSE, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶21

SEETHA PLAKKADAN

¶22

W/O.VELAYUDHAN, EDATHALATHUKUNDU HOUSE, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶23

SAKEENA

¶24

W/O. ABDUL KAREEM, AKKARAPEEDIKA HOUSE, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶25

LAKSHMI

¶26

W/O. PREMACHANDRAN, CHAKIRIKALLAN HOUSE, EDAVANNA MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶27

W.P.(C).9669/12

¶28

-2-

¶29

MINI V.K.

¶30

PANDYAD HOUSE, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶31

SALINI K.

¶32

POTTAKKATT HOUSE, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM-676 541.

¶33

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶34

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

W.P.(C)..9669/12

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶39

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO.272/08/LSGI, DTD.13.10.2008.

¶40

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT, DTD.9.1.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.9.1.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF OF REPORT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19.1.2012.

¶43

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.13.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶44

/true copy/

¶45

P.A. To Judge

¶46

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶47

........................................ W.P.(C).9669/2012

¶48

.............................................. Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2012

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 10 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶51

On 7.1.2012, election to ADS in Ward No.14 of Edavanna Grama Panchayat was held. According to the petitioner, the election is vitiated for various irregularities. Therefore, Ext.P2 complaint was made by her and others to the first respondent. This was followed by Ext.P3, another complaint made by the petitioner to the first respondent. According to her, in pursuance to the complaint thus made, the first respondent made Exts.P4 and P5 reports to the second respondent. It is complaining that despite receipt of Exts.P4 and P5 reports, the second respondent has not taken any final decision in the matter, this writ petition is filed.

¶52

W.P.(C).9669/12

¶53

¶54

3. Petitioner also concedes that the second

¶55

respondent is the competent authority to settle the dispute. It is stated that it was therefore that Exts.P4 and P5 reports were made by the first respondent to the second respondent. In such circumstances, it is for the second respondent to take final decision on Exts.P4 and P5. This the second respondent shall do with notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶56

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶58

mrcs

¶59

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Pushpavalli v. the Returning Officer, Kudumbasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpavalli v. the Returning Officer, Kudumbasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddique Kalathil Vs Sobhana Kamala Sudarsana Rao

Rema N.K. Vs M.Nandakumar

Jayaprakash P.M. Vs Secretary, Vatakara Municipality

Nadeera Vs Kuthanoor Grama Panchayath

Kalady Grama Panchayath Vs Ombudsman

The Kerala State Co-Operative Consumers Vs the Secretary,Guruvayoor Municipality