Dismissed

N.P.Krishnakumar v. Surya Nair

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018CRP/282/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this civil revision petition challenging the maintainability of an election petition filed against a returned candidate. The court held that the candidate was disqualified under the Kerala Municipality Act and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed with cost of respondents; lower court directed to dispose of election petition within three months.

N.P.Krishnakumar Vs Surya Nair — Election Law | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 282 of 2016 (D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.160/16 IN OP (ELECTION) No.4/15 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY, DATED 30.05.2016

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST CR.PETITIONER :-

¶8

N.P.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN UNNIPILLA, NIRANATH OM KRISHNA HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST KARA, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.B.RAJESH (KOTTAYAM)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND CR.PETITIONER:-

¶11

SURYA NAIR, W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, KARINGANAMPALLIYIL HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST KARA, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE,

¶12

CHANGANACHERRY TALUK 686 102.

¶13

RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR,

¶14

KADUTHANATTU HOUSE,

¶15

CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE,

¶16

CHANGANACHERRY TALUK 686 102.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRP.No. 282 of 2016 (D)

¶20

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ELECTION PETITION No.4/2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY DATED 5.12.2015.

¶24

ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 15.01.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

C.R.P. No. 282 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.160/2016 in O.P. (Election) No.4/2015 of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, the first respondent in the E.P., who is the returned candidate, came up with this revision. The said application was filed by the returned candidate/first respondent challenging the maintainability of the Election Petition submitted by the defeated candidate.

¶34

The main contention raised by the defeated candidate is that the returned candidate/first respondent was an employee of Travancore Devaswom Board and was working as special grade Sub Group Officer. There is a clear prohibition under Section 86 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for

¶35

short 'the Act') that the employees of the State Government/Central Government or a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by a State or Central Government or a company in which a State or Central Government or local authority has not less than 51 per cent

¶36

C.R.P. No. 282 of 2016

¶37

¶38

share or of Boards or any university established under a State enactment shall not be qualified for election as, or for holding the office of Councillor of Municipality. It is seemed to be so strange that he had contested the election after obtaining a Non Objection Certificate from the Devaswom Board. It is also submitted that the Devaswom Board had issued a notification with an overriding effect over the provision contained in the Kerala Municipality Act. I am at a loss to understand what is the authority of the Devaswom Board in issuing any notification overriding any of the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Act. Section 86 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and hence the returned candidate would squarely come under the purview of hit under Section 86 of the Act. That may be the reason why the returned candidate had opted to file an application challenging the maintainability of the Election Petition and on its dismissal the same was taken before this Court in the year 2016 and dragged the matter for a long period of two years. This kind of practice of misusing the process of Court, that too by a candidate

¶39

C.R.P. No. 282 of 2016

¶40

¶41

unauthorizedly elected to the office of Councillor of Municipality in violation of the mandate under Section 86 of the Act, cannot be permitted and in case of allowing the Election Petition he is liable to return all the benefits obtained by him under the post he held in the Municipality on the basis of the election conducted in that Council.

¶42

There is no merit, much less any valid reason for entertaining this revision and hence the revision fails. The lower court is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the Election Petition within a time schedule of three months from today and report compliance to this Court. Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of respondents.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶45

DMR/-

N.P.Krishnakumar v. Surya Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Krishnakumar v. Surya Nair

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

Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Jasim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Majid Vs State of Kerala

Mavila Prasanna Vs Mullacheri Ramani

Sathy Vs Hillvalley Corporation

Bright Kuries Vs Jos T.J.