Allowed

Sulfath Noufal Khan, v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Kerala HC18 Nov 2020WP(C)/16322/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a Municipality member. It held that without valid service of a whip on the local authority's Secretary and lack of evident party direction, the disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) cannot be sustained.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; impugned order of disqualification set aside against the petitioner.

Sulfath Noufal Khan, Vs the Kerala State Election Commission — Election Law | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16322 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SULFATH NOUFAL KHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, THODIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 122.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 037.

¶11

2 LAILA PAREED, EDATHUMKUNNEL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 122, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.01, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREEVALSAN.V R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREENATH R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.K.SHIMI R2 BY ADV. SMT.DIVYA C BALAN

¶13

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SC KSEC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.16322 OF 2020(M)

¶16

..2..

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 18th day of November 2020

¶19

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are elected as the members of

¶20

Erattupetta Municipality based on an election held in the year 2015. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent contested the election as a candidate of Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). This writ petition was filed challenging an order of the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner to continue as a member of aforesaid Municipality.

¶21

The disqualification arose in the context of electing a Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Municipality. The election was scheduled on 4.06.2018. This was necessitated on account of the resignation of the persons who were holding the office previously. It appears that some of the Members of the Municipality had not voted in favour of the nominees of CPI(M). This resulted in filing petition for disqualification by the 2^nd respondent against all of them. All the cases were taken up together and the Election Commission decided the cases by a common order. All other cases were dismissed except the

¶22

..3..

¶23

WP(C).No.16322 OF 2020(M)

¶24

petitioner's case. It is in this background that the Court has to consider the decision of the Election Commission.

¶25

As seen from the findings, the petitioner did not cast vote in favour of the nominee of the CPI(M). The petitioner's stand is that she never received any whip. The findings of the Election Commission reflected in paragraph 17. It is seen from the finding that the whip was served through an area committee member namely, Sri. Sheneer. The petitioner denied the acknowledgment. However, the Commission compared the signature in vakalath and the statement of objection produced along with the documents before the Commission and found that the whip was served. Here, it is to be noted that there was no service

¶26

on the Secretary of the local authorities, which is a mandatory requirement under law. When there is a denial and when there is no proof as to the service on the Secretary, it has to be assumed that there was no valid service of whip. Therefore, the only question is whether the petitioner had a knowledge of such directions of the party. The service of the whip is not proved in accordance with law. The Election Commission proceeded as though there was a valid service of whip. In

¶27

WP(C).No.16322 OF 2020(M)

¶28

the absence of any concrete and cogent evidence to prove that the petitioner was aware of any direction of the party, the first limb of 3(1) (a) of the Act to disqualify a member on the ground of voluntarily giving up of membership, cannot be canvased.

¶29

In the light of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner made out his case for interference. Since there is no valid whip in accordance with the provisions of law, further evidence need not be looked into, based on whip, to disqualify the petitioner under Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act, unless there is an ample evidence to show that the petitioner was aware of such decision of the party. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as against the petitioner.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No.16322 OF 2020(M)

¶35

..5..

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.64/2018 DATED 02.07.2018 IN THE FILE OF KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP NO.64/2018 IN THE FILE OF KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP NO.64/2018.

¶41

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 06.05.2020.

Sulfath Noufal Khan, v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulfath Noufal Khan, 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

P.R.Salim Raj Vs Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat

Jolly Pathrose.L Vs Thekerala State Election Commission

Joshy a. Chembarathy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sathikumari Vs S.Prem Sankar

Sathidevi.K.v, Vs Payyannur Municipality

Thomaskutty Kurian Vs the Kerala State Election Commission