Dismissed

Ismail v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2021WP(C)/518/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a writ petition is not the proper remedy to challenge the validity of a Panchayat election. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy of filing an election petition before the Munsiff Court under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy of election petition.

Ismail Vs State of Kerala — Election Law | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.518 OF 2021(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ISMAIL

¶8

AGED 50 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, PATHAMPAD, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM - 676109.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR SHRI.ABDUL SAMAD K.K.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695301

¶13

2 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION JANAHITHAM, TC. 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695033.

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676505.

¶15

4 THE RETURNING OFFICER, NIRAMARUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM - 676109.

¶16

5 NIRAMARUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM - 676109. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

6 P.P. SAITHALAVI S/O. MOIDEEN BAVA, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADAPURAM P.O, UNNIAL, MALAPPURAM - 676302.

¶18

WP(C).No.518 OF 2021(L) -2-

¶19

7 ABIDA W/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, PULICKAL, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O, MALAPPURAM - 676109.

¶20

R2 BY SHRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R5 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK R6 BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV R6 BY ADV. SRI.RONY JOSE R6 BY ADV. SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL R7 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.518 of 2021

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2021

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Election to the post of President of the Niramaruthur Grama Panchayath, Malappuram District is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶27

The petitioner and the sixth respondent in the writ petition were the candidates for the post of President. The contention of the petitioner is that, the vote cast by the 7^th respondent was illegally declared as invalid by the 4^th respondent Returning Officer; the vote needs to be declared as valid. He seeks for quashing the declaration of the sixth respondent as the elected President and also for a declaration that the petitioner has won the election.

¶28

Section 153(14)(a) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act 1994 reads thus:-

¶29

“(14) Where a dispute arises as to the validity of an election of President or Vice-President of a Panchayat, any member of that Panchayat may

¶30

W. P. (C) No.518 of 2021

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

file a petition,-

¶33

(a) in the case of Village Panchayat, before the Munsiff Court having jurisdiction over the area in which its headquarters is situated;”

¶34

The remedy of the petitioner is to move an election petition before the Munsiff's Court as prescribed by the Rules. A writ petition is not the proper remedy. [ Jaspal Singh Arora v. State of M.P. and others (1998) 9 SCC 594; Shailamma Issac v. Returning Officer, Anicadu Grama Panchayat, Mallappally and Others (2014 (1) KLT 410) & Thomas K. Peelianickal v. State Election Commission and others 2020(4) KHC 615 ].

¶35

Accordingly, relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

WP(C).No.518 OF 2021(L)

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION NO. 308/2020/SEC DATED 12.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B1/33870/2020/SEC DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT DATED 30.12.2020 PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Ismail v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beta Granite (P) Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Kerala

Peejay Granites Vs District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority(Deiaa)

Muralidharan Vs the State of Kerala

Manesh K.Mathew Vs the District Collector

Paulson Joseph Vs Sri. Pradeepkumar. N

Suresh Varghese Vs State of Kerala