Dismissed

P.K.Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020WA/1445/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ appeal challenging a single Judge's decision that excluded a library representative from the voter list for State Library Council elections. The Benches held that the library lacks required affiliation status and the exclusion was lawful.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; the impugned judgment upholding the deletion of the petitioner's name from the voters' list was affirmed.

P.K.Baiju Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1445 OF 2020

¶8

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

P.K.BAIJU AGED 44 YEARS S/O. K.V KUNJAPPA, SREENILAYAM, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 592 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SMT.M.B.SHYNI SHRI.RAMEES P.K. SMT.C.P.ROOPA SRI.DEEPAK RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, VAZHUTHACAUD, POOJAPPURA ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 014.

¶13

2 KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ETN 43, TC 24/1962, K.ANIRUDHAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 014.

¶14

3 JANARDHANAN.U. AGED 61 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, SOORYA, VELAM, MAYYIL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 602.

¶15

4 THE STATE RETURNING OFFICER, STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL , OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, VAZHUTHACAUD, POOJAPPURA ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 014 R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

¶16

SR.GOVERNMEN PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, ADV. B.S SYAMANTHAK

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.A No. 1445/2020

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2020.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

SHAJI P. CHALY,J.

¶23

The captioned writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19093 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.09.2020, whereby the following reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined.

¶24

To Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order.

¶25

To issue a declaration that the petitioner is a voter in the final voter’s list of Kerala State Library Council which was published on 04.07.2020.

¶26

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as

¶27

follows:

¶28

According to the appellant, he is a member of the Kannur Central Library, which is affiliated to the State Library Council and he is the Secretary of the Kannur District Library Council for the past 10 years. The election to the executive committee of the Kerala State Library Council was scheduled to be held on 29.07.2020, which was subsequently postponed to 06.10.2020. The election to the Kerala State Library Council is a three tier process. Every library affiliated to the Library Council has to elect two members from them as voters in the Taluk Library Council. The Taluk Library Council will elect two members from among them to the District Library Council. The District Library

¶29

W.A No. 1445/2020

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

Council, in turn, will elect 1 member from each Taluk under the District Library Council as a voter to the State Library Council. The elections under all levels are conducted by the independent Returning Officers. Thereafter, election to the executive committee of the State Library Council will be conducted from the elected voters of each District Library Council and other nominated members.

¶32

The composition of the voters in the election to the Kerala State Library Council is provided under Section 3(2) of the Public Libraries (Kerala Grantha Sala Sangham) Act, 1989 ('Act, 1989' for short). The case of the appellant is that the appellant was elected from the Kannur Central Library to the Taluk Library Council of Kannur. Later, he was elected to the District Library Council from the Kannur Taluk Library Council. Thereafter, the appellant was elected as a voter to the Kerala State Library Council from Kannur Taluk.

¶33

The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that during the course of all these electoral proceedings, nobody had filed any objection against the inclusion of the appellant in the voters' lists. The 4^th respondent was appointed as the Returning Officer for conducting election to the Executive Committee of the Kerala State Library Council. The Kerala State Library Council, the second respondent, has published a draft voters' list, wherein the appellant's name was included as a voter. At that point of time, the third respondent, namely one Janardhanan U

¶34

W.A No. 1445/2020

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

filed an objection against the inclusion of the appellant's name in the voters' list stating that Kannur District Central Library is not an affiliated library and hence, he is not eligible to participate in the election. The objection was considered by the Returning Officer after providing an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and has published Ext.P6 final voters' list on 03.07.2020, including the name of the appellant in the final voters' list as a provisional inclusion. According to the appellant, he had initiated steps for contesting to the Executive Committee of the State Library Council. While so, the Returning Officer has forwarded Ext.P8 intimation to the appellant stating that the Returning Officer has deleted his name from the final voters' list. Therefore, according to the appellant, Ext.P8 order passed by the Returning Officer was not taking into account the provisions of Act, 1989 in its real perspective and has committed a mistake by removing the name of the appellant from the voters' list, which is an arbitrary and illegal act. It was with the above said background, the writ petition was filed.

¶37

The State Library Council and the Returning Officer have filed a joint counter affidavit contending that the appellant, being elected from Kannur District Library, is not eligible to be a voter, since the Kannur District Library is not affiliated to the Kerala State Library Council and it has been declared as a District Library on 07.08.2008. It was further

¶38

W.A No. 1445/2020 : 5 :

¶39

contended that the Kerala State Library Council is directly conducting District Libraries in Kasargod, Wayanad and Knnaur and the Kerala State Library Council is an autonomous statutory body/institution constituted under Act, 1989. It was also pointed out that the composition of the State Library Council is as per Section 3 of the said Act and by virtue of Section 28 of Act, 1989, a library such as, Kannur District Central Library established or maintained by the State Library Council, is entitled for recognition as an affiliated library under Act, 1989. It was also submitted that the contentions raised by the appellant, relying upon Section 45 of Act, 1989, is misconceived. That apart, it was submitted that the State-District-Taluk Libraries have a completely different administration and functioning from those of the affiliated libraries. Further, the byelaws of the District Central Library do not provide for the election of two representatives to the Taluk Library Council.

¶40

That apart, it was submitted that the Taluk Library Tribunal and the State Library Tribunal contemplated under Rules 29 and 96 have not yet been constituted. It was accordingly that the Joint Director of Department of General Education has been appointed as the Returning Officer for election to the Executive Committee of the State Library Council and the said authority considered Ext.P4 objection filed by the third respondent. It was also pointed out that Chapter II of the Public Libraries (Kerala Granthasala Sanghom) Rules, deals with affiliation of

¶41

W.A No. 1445/2020

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

libraries and mere furnishing of Form No. 15 under the Rules will not confer any right to vote in the elections. That apart, it was the specific contention of respondents 2 and 4 that as per Rule 27 of the Rules, which deals with disqualification to represent a library in the Taluk Library Council, no member is eligible to stand for election as representative of the library in the Taluk Library Council, if he is not a qualified voter along with other disqualifications prescribed thereunder. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 27 specifies that a member elected as a representative shall cease to hold the position, in case he subsequently incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned as per Rule 27(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the State Library Council was that the contentions put forth by the appellant, placing reliance upon Section 45 of Act, 1989, cannot be sustained. Whereas, the rest of the provisions of the Act, 1989 and the Rules thereto prescribes the qualifications.

¶44

The paramount contention advanced by the appellant in the appeal is that the Act, 1989 is an Act to consolidate and to re-organize the entire library system in the State and that the Kannur Central Library is a library functioning under the Madras Public Libraries Act and

¶45

by virtue of Section 45 of the Act, affiliation of existing libraries is taken care of. The Kannur Central Library, being a library maintained by LLA, is being affiliated to the State Library Council on the date on which the

¶46

W.A No. 1445/2020 : 7 :

¶47

Act, 1989 came into force and therefore, the findings of the Returning Officer as well as the learned single Judge that the Kannur Central Library is not an affiliated library, is improper and illegal. That apart, it is contended that publication of final voters' list after hearing objections cannot be altered by deletion of a voter before the conclusion of the election and therefore, the removal of the appellant from the final voters' list cannot be sustained. Other contentions are also raised to the effect that the learned single Judge has not appreciated the provisions of Act, 1989, taking into account the intention of the said statute.

¶48

We have heard Sri. John K. George appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Surin George Ipe for the State Sri. B.S. Syamanthak, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶49

The sole question arises for consideration is whether any interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned single Judge. But, on going through the judgment of the learned single Judge, we find that the learned single Judge has taken into account the contentions put forth by the appellant and has considered the same taking into account all the relevant provisions of Act, 1989. It is also clear from Section 28

¶50

of Act, 1989 that any Library other than a Library established or maintained by the State Library Council or a District Library Council or a Taluk Library Council may apply in such form as may be prescribed to the

¶51

W.A No. 1445/2020 : 8 :

¶52

Taluk Library Council of the Taluk in which it is constituted for recognition as an affiliated library under the Act, 1989. It further specifies that the Taluk Library Council shall consider the application and if it is satisfied that the conditions prescribed for granting affiliation have been complied with, recommend the application through District Library Council and the State Library Council for affiliation and on such affiliation being granted, the library shall be treated as an affiliated library. Therefore, it is clear that Section 28 excludes the libraries established and maintained by the State, District or Taluk Library Council from the purview of the affiliation. Moreover, the appellant claims that there is deemed affiliation for the Kannur Central Library, relying upon Section 45 of Act, 1989, which reads thus:

¶53

“45: Affiliation of existing libraries On and from such date as the Government may fix, all the libraries affiliated to the Granthasala Sanghom and the Public Libraries established or maintained by a Local Library Authority in erstwhile Malabar area, under the provisions of the Madras Public Libraries Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXIV of 1948) and the libraries which are not affiliated to the Granthasala Sanghom but which receive grant direct from the Government as well as the State Libraries shall be deemed to be affiliated to the State Library Council and the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder shall apply to those libraries.”

¶54

The claim raised by the appellant is that the Kannur District Central Library has deemed affiliation to the State Library Council on the

¶55

W.A No. 1445/2020

¶56

: 9 :

¶57

strength of Ext.P3 order by which funds are allotted to it, and land was allotted in the name of its Secretary as per Ext.P9 order. We find that the said aspects were considered by the learned single Judge and has arrived at the conclusion that mere fact that grant was allowed to the District Central Library would not make it an affiliated library because grant is admissible to various categories of libraries as given in Section 47, which includes various categories of libraries eligible for grant. The said finding was arrived at taking into account the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 4 as also Section 46 of the Act, 1989.

¶58

Therefore, on a wholesome consideration of the grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal and the provisions of law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has taken into account the entire pros and cons and the facts and figures in the subject matter and has arrived at the conclusions in the judgment that the appellant was not entitled to get any relief, since he is not a qualified voter in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules constituted under the Act, 1989.

¶59

On going through the averments put forth and Ext.P8 order passed by the Returning Officer impugned in the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the decision was taken by the Returning Officer after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and therefore, according to us, a writ court considering the writ petition need

¶60

W.A No. 1445/2020 : 10 :

¶61

look into the manner in which the decision was taken by the statutory authorities. Moreover, the learned single Judge has considered the entire issues raised and has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was not a qualified voter in order to participate in the State Library Council election after providing interpretation to the provisions of Act, 1985 and the Rules thereto.

¶62

In the circumstances, we do not think that the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Moreover, no grounds are made out in the appeal to think that the learned single Judge has exercised the discretion not in accordance with law and has also exceeded the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶63

Needless to say, writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶64

sd/-

¶65

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY,

JUDGE.

P.K.Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Baiju v. State of Kerala

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

The District Town Planner Vs Joby. M.C

P.C. George Mla, Vs State of Kerala

P.D.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Joby Vettiyadan, Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Joby Vettiyadan

V.Somanathan Vs the Appellate Authgority