Dismissed

K.Muraleedharan v. the State Election Commission

Kerala HC8 Dec 2020WP(C)/26719/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking adjournment of the Vaikom Municipality election polls held in Ward No.15, as the candidate was infected with COVID-19. The court held that the specific provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act did not confer power to adjourn polls on this ground and that the candidate could change agents.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of merit as the grounds for adjournment do not fall within the scope of the Kerala Municipality Act.

K.Muraleedharan Vs the State Election Commission — Election Law | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, MANAYATHU PUTHANPURA HOUSE, KAYIPARAMBU WARD, VAIKOM, PIN-686 141,

¶8

CHIEF ELECTION AGENT OF SRI.ABDUL SALAM RAVUTHAR, CANDIDATE OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (INC), UDF COALITION, WARD NO.15 OF VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695 033.

¶12

2 THE RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTION TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SOIL CONSERVATION (FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE), DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶13

3 ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTION TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, PIN-686 141.

¶14

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶17

5 THE DISTRICT ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶18

6 VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 141.

¶19

7 SRI.SANTHOSH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PUTHENTHARA HOUSE, VAIKOM, PIN-686 141, CANDIDATE OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (CPI), LDF COALITION, WARD NO.15 OF WAIKOM MUNICIPALITY.

¶20

8 SRI.ABDUL SALAM RAVUTHAR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.JIKRIYA RAVUTHAR, KOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAKAVALA, VAIKOM, PIN-686 141, CANDIDATE OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (INC), UDF COALITION, WARD NO.15 OF VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY.

¶21

SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.M.NAZAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.26719 of 2020

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2020

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is the Chief Election Agent of Sri.Abdul Salam Ravuthar, a candidate contesting the election scheduled to take place on 10.12.2020 to Vaikom Municipality from Ward No.15. It is stated by the petitioner that in the course of the campaign, the candidate was infected with COVID-19 and consequently he is undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, Kottayam since 28.11.2020. On account of the said reason, it is stated that the petitioner is now under quarantine. It is also stated by the petitioner that the candidate is not likely to be discharged from the hospital before the election. As the candidate is unable to campaign for the election, the petitioner submitted Exts.P3 to P5 representations before respondents 1 to 3 seeking orders for adjourning the poll to a date to be notified later, invoking Section 127 of the Kerala Municipality Act (the Act). This writ petition is filed thereupon alleging that

¶30

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

Exts.P3 to P5 representations are not being considered by the respondents.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are duty bound under sub section (1) of Section 127 of the Act to adjourn the poll in a case of this nature and that their inaction to consider the representations preferred by the petitioner is unjustified. The learned counsel has also pointed out that th e petitioner as also the candidate have a right to be present at the polling stations as also at the counting stations in terms of the provisions of the Act and they are deprived of the said right on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents concerned in acting upon the representations preferred by the petitioner .

¶35

Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act invoked by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking adjournment of the poll, reads thus:

¶36

“ If at an election the proceedings at any polling station provided under section 101 for the poll are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause, the Presiding Officer for such polling station or the Returning Officer presiding

¶37

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

over such place, as the case may be, shall announce an adjournment of the poll to a date to be notified later, and were the poll is so adjourned by a Presiding Officer, he shall forthwith inform the Returning Officer concerned.”

¶40

As explicit from the quoted provision, the provision confers power on the Presiding Officer of a polling station or the Returning Officer presiding over such place, as the case may be, to adjourn the poll to a date to be notified later, if the proceedings at that polling station are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence or if it is not possible to take the poll at the polling station on account of any natural calamity or any other sufficient cause. First of all, the polling in the instant case is yet to take place. Assuming that the power under the said provision can be invoked by the officers concerned even before the polling, I do not think that the reason, on the basis of which the petitioner has invoked the said power viz, that the candidate is infected with Covid-19, would fall within the scope of Section 127 of the Act.

¶41

Of course, Sections 122 and 133 of the Act confer right on a candidate and his agent to be present at the polling station at the time of polling and at the counting station at the time of counting of votes. In so far as the inability of the candidate to invoke the said right available to him is not

¶42

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

attributable to the respondents, according to me, the same can never be a reason to seek adjournment of the poll. It is all the more so since there is no enabling provision in the Act to seek adjournment of the poll on that ground. The case that even the petitioner is not able to attend the polling stations and counting stations as he is under quarantine, is without any substance as Section 120 of the Act enables the candidate to change his agent at any point of time.

¶45

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶47

ds 07.12.2020

¶48

WP(C).No.26719 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE CANDIDATE	COVID-19 TEST REPORT DATED 30.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED HEALTH AND FAMILY OF KERALA FOR COV 14.10.2020.	REVISED DISCHARGE BY DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, GOVERNMENT ID-19 PATIENTS DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY PETI CAPACITY AS THE C THE CANDIDATE, TO DATED 30.11.2020	REPRESENTATION TIONER, IN HIS HIEF ELECTION AGENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE ENCLOSURE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY PETI CAPACITY AS THE C THE CANDIDATE, TO DATED 30.11.2020	REPRESENTATION TIONER, IN HIS HIEF ELECTION AGENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE ENCLOSURE.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY PETI CAPACITY AS THE C THE CANDIDATE, TO DATED 30.11.2020	REPRESENTATION TIONER, IN HIS HIEF ELECTION AGENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE ENCLOSURE.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PETITIONER OF THE 7TH RESPON	ORDER OF APPOINTMENT AS THE ELECTION AGENT DENT DATED 27.11.2020.

K.Muraleedharan v. the State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muraleedharan v. the State Election Commission

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

Khusbu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs Eloor Municipality

Lalini M.S. Vs the District Collector

A.Jayaraman Vs State Election Commissioner

Shanoj Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayat

Balakrishnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala