Allowed

S.Sunil Kumar v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016WP(C)/11067/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the declaration of election for the fourth respondent to the Grama Panchayat Standing Committee. The Court held that the Returning Officer made a mistake by electing the majority-side candidate over the petitioner who secured first preference votes, and allowed the petition to declare the petitioner elected.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the petitioner is elected to the Standing Committee for Welfare in place of the fourth respondent; dismissal of the fourth respondent's election.

S.Sunil Kumar Vs the Kerala State Election Commission — Election Law | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11067 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

S.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MEMBER WARD NUMBER 12, ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THENARI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

THE RETURNING OFFICER, ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PALAKKAD), THENARI P.O.,PALAKKAD, PIN-678 622.

¶13

THE ELAPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAPPULLY, THENARI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 622.

¶14

C.V.YESODA, MEMBER,WARD NUMBER 20, ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THENARI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 622.

¶15

R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMISSION

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 11067 of 2016 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 3^rd RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT HELD ON 30,11.2015.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^nd RESPONDENT ON DECEMBER 22, 2015.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED DECEMBER 24, 2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1sr RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶28

W.P (c) No. 11067 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved by the declaration of

¶32

fourth respondent's election to the standing Committee for welfare (general seat). The petitioner admittedly got four first preference vote and the fourth respondent got 17 fourth preference votes. The contention raised is that the petitioner having obtained fourth preference votes and only other candidates having obtained first preference votes of 17, the petitioner ought to have been elected.

¶33

The Election Commission has filed a statement, in

¶34

which the results of the election is clearly stated that Election Commission admits that there has been a mistake

¶35

committed by the Returning Officer. There were 17 on one side and four in the other side. The fourth respondent belongs to the majority side and petitioner to the minority side. On election being conducted, one Mini obtained 17

¶36

W.P (c) No. 11067 of 2016

¶37

¶38

first preference votes and she had to be elected. From the other candidates, only the petitioner obtained four first preference votes. Hence, he also had to be elected. However, the Returning Officer elected the members from the majority side, who obtained 17 second preference, third preference and fourth preference votes. The fourth respondent was elected only on the basis of 17 fourth preference votes obtained by her. The same is not proper, since the petitioner was entitled to be elected as the second candidate after the first candidate who obtained 17 first preference votes. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected to the Standing Committee for Welfare of the respondent Panchayat in the place of the fourth respondent.

¶39

Writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶40

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

DMR/-

S.Sunil Kumar v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sunil Kumar v. the Kerala State Election Commission

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

Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs Kaveri S.

Rajeevan.K.K Vs the Vice Chancellor, University Fo Calicut

Vijayan. P Vs the State of Kerala

M.M. Babu Vs M.G. Rajamanickam

Vimal Alias Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vasu Vs State of Kerala and Others