The Writ Court dismissed a petition challenging a Kerala State Election Commission order that condoned a 33-day delay in filing an election petition. The Court declined to review the Tribunal's decision, holding no illegality or arbitrariness existed.
Writ petition dismissed.
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
1 GEORGE JOHN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. MR.JOHN, MEMBER WARD NO. 3, KALLOORKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUVATTUPUZHA, RESIDING AT KAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THAZHUVAMKUNNU, KALLORKADU P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
2 BIJI JENTLE, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. MR. GENTLE, MEMBER, WARD NO. 9, KALLOORKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHERUVALAVIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
3 ASHA JIFI, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. MR. JIFI, MEMBER, WARD NO. 01, KALLOORKADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT EDATTEL HOUSE, KALLORKKAD P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TONY VINCENT AGED 24 YEARS S/O. VINCENT PAUL, MEMBER, WARD NO. XI, KALLOORKADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT THOTTAMURICKAL HOUSE, KALLORKADU P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 668
R2-SRI .MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission in I.A. Nos. 93/2018, 94/2018 and 95/2018 in O.P.Nos. 67/2018, 68/2018 and 69/2018
by which delay of 33 days for filing the original petition before the Commission was condoned. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that none of the aspects pointed out by the petitioners were considered by the Tribunal. It is also pointed out that sufficient reasons are not shown in the application for condonation of delay.
petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the pleadings and
documents on record. I have gone extensively through
3
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
Ext.P12 order passed by the Tribunal and I have found that on account of the objections raised by the petitioners, evidence was taken in regard to a medical certificate issued by a Doctor and thereafter the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that sufficient reasons are put forth by the party respondent that is the respondent No.1 in this writ petition to condone the delay. It is also clear and evident from Ext.P12 order that, the order was passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Various factual circumstances pointed out by the petitioners were also taken into account before arriving at a conclusion.
4
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
arbitrariness or illegality in Ext.P12 order passed by the Tribunal. Upshot of the above discussion is,
writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 67/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 68/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 69/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 93/2018 IN O.P NO. 67/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 94/2018 IN O.P NO. 68/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 95/2018 IN O.P NO. 69/2018 DATED 6-7-2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 93/2018 IN O.P NO. 67/2018 DATED 31-8-2018
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 94/2018
6
WP(C).No. 2641 of 2019
IN O.P NO. 68/2018 DATED 31-8-2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 95/2018 IN O.P NO. 69/2018 DATED 31-8-2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. T.K THAMPI DATED 02-072018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED SEPTEMBEER 2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DR. T.K THAMPI DATED 10-11-2018
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH MARKED AS EXHIBIT B3 IN EVIDENCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28-12-2018 IN I.A NO. 93/2018 IN O.P NO. 67/2018 IN I.A NO. 94/2018 IN O.P 68/2018 IN I.A NO. 95/2018 IN O.P 69/2018.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can sit in appeal over the Kerala State Election Commission's order condoning a 33-day delay in filing an election petition.
Whether the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction arbitrarily or illegally while condoning the delay.
Whether sufficient grounds for condonation of delay were found by the lower Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
George John
Tony Vincent
Kerala State Election Commission
Shaji P.Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
