Dismissed

Usha Vijayan v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Kerala HC8 Aug 2023WP(C)/8421/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed three writ petitions challenging the Election Commission's refusal to decide maintainability as a preliminary issue. Upholding theCommission's decision to proceed with a full trial within the statutory 120-day limit, the Court held that the specific procedural code of civil procedure did not apply.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of three writ petitions challenging the order of the Kerala State Election Commission refusing to decide maintainability as a preliminary issue.

Usha Vijayan Vs the Kerala State Election Commission — Election Law | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 8382 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

USHA VIJAYAN, AGED 51 YEARS D/O PADMANABHAN, ADICHUMAKKAL VEEDU, MORCAUD, KOOVAPALLI P.O, IDUKKI, PIN – 685590

¶7

BY ADVS. P.DEEPAK NAZRIN BANU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION T.C. NO: 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN, (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶10

2 M.J. JACOB AGED 65 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, MUNDANCKAL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685590

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8421/2023, 11013/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶18

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 8421 OF 2023

¶19

PETITIONER:

¶20

USHA VIJAYAN AGED 51 YEARS D/O PADMANABHAN, ADICHUMAKKAL VEEDU, MORCAUD, KOOVAPALLI P.O, IDUKKI, PIN – 685590

¶21

BY ADVS. P.DEEPAK NAZRIN BANU

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION T.C. NO: 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN, (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

2 ANJALEENA AGED 38 YEARS W/O SIJO, 2/4, VARAKALLIL, KANJAAR, KUDAYATHOOR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685590

¶25

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8382/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶32

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 11013 OF 2023

¶33

PETITIONER:

¶34

SINDHU JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS W/O. JIBI THOMAS, MEMBER, WARD-7, VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOONAMPARAYIL, DAIVAMMADE, KONNAKKMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685604

¶35

BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM TOM E. JACOB REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM JOICE GEORGE

¶36

RESPONDENTS:

¶37

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.C. NO: 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN, (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 2 DECLARK SEBASTIAN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.15 VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHAKKAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PADAMUGHOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685604

¶38

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8382/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

: 4 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) Nos.8382, 8421 and 11013 of 2023

¶45

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2023

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶48

All the three writ petitions have been filed

¶49

challenging the order of the Kerala State Election Commission refusing to decide the question of maintainability as preliminary issue in the proceedings pending before the Election commission.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.8382 of 2023 has been filed by the

¶51

writ petitioner, who is a member representing Ward No.7 and the incumbent President of Kudayathoor Grama Panchayat, seeking to set aside Ext.P4 and to command the 1^st respondent-Kerala State Election Commission to forthwith reconsider Ext.P3 application and arrive at a finding on the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner apropos the

¶52

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 5 :

¶53

maintainability of Ext.P1 petition, before proceeding any further with the adjudication on merits of Ext.P1 petition. W.P.(C) No.8421 of 2023 has been filed by the same petitioner for similar relief.

¶54

W.P.(C) No.11013 of 2023 has been filed by a member representing Ward No.7 and the incumbent member of Vathikudy Grama Panchayat seeking to quash Ext.P5 and to command the 1^st respondent-Kerala State Election Commission to forthwith reconsider Ext.P4 application and arrive at a finding on the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner apropos the maintainability of Ext.P1 petition before proceeding any further with the adjudication on merits of Ext.P1 petition.

¶55

In W.P.(C) Nos.8382/2023 and 8421/2023, the petitioner urged that the 2^nd respondent moved the Kerala State Election Commission invoking Section 3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, seeking to disqualify the writ petitioner. In Ext.P1 petition filed by the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent alleged that the

¶56

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 6 :

¶57

petitioner is a member of a political party Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group). The petitioner has filed a declaration to the effect that the petitioner holds allegiance to the political party Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group). In the Register maintained in the Panchayat also, the petitioner is described as a member belonging to Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group). The 2^nd respondent alleged that the petitioner has violated a whip issued by a competent person in respect of voting in a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner.

¶58

The petitioner stated that to constitute a disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1999, the petitioner should belong to a political party. A political party is defined in Section 2(xi) to mean a political party registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Central Act 43 of 1951). The Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group) of which the petitioner is alleged to be a member, is not a political party registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, a petition to disqualify the petitioner under Section 3(1)(a) of

¶59

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 7 :

¶60

the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 is not maintainable.

¶61

The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P2 objection and Ext.P3 IA questioning the maintainability of the petition before the Election Commission. The petitioner urged before the Election Commissioner that the maintainability of the complaint/petition be decided first. The petitioner states that without considering the objection of the petitioner and deciding the maintainability of the petition as a preliminary issue, the Election Commission has rejected the I.A.No.11/2023 filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 order dated 24.01.2023.

¶62

The petitioner states that the Election Commission has not taken into consideration any relevant factor for deciding the issue. The Election Commission only held that whether the petitioner has become subject to disqualification as provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 Act; whether the alleged whip was served on the petitioner and whether

¶63

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 8 :

¶64

the alleged act of the petitioner did amount to voluntarily giving up her membership from the party, are matters involving questions of fact and hence there is no need to consider issues separately.

¶65

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that only when there are jurisdictional facts satisfying the requirements of the statute, that a petition is maintainable under the Act, 1999. Section 2(xi) of the Act clearly defines a political party. There is no serious dispute that the Kerala Congress (P.J. Joseph Group), in which the petitioner is alleged to be a member, is not a registered political party satisfying the requirements of Section 2(xi) of the Act. Therefore, when the jurisdictional facts are absent, the petitioner can neither be forced to undergo a trial nor the petitioner can be forced to adduce evidence in the matter. The Election Commission ought to have decided whether the jurisdictional facts exist at all, to entertain Ext.P1 petition and only thereafter ought to have proceeded to adjudicate the case.

¶66

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 9 :

¶67

The petitioner pointed out that whether the whip allegedly issued to the petitioner satisfies the statutory requirements, whether whip is issued by a competent person, whether the petitioner is bound by the whip issued etc. are adjudicatory facts which can be decided at the final stage. However, the issue whether the petitioner belongs to a political party as defined under Section 2(xi) is a jurisdictional fact and it has to be decided first.

¶68

The counsel for the petitioner contrasted Section 4(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 and Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 and submitted that the Rules contemplate preliminary examination by the Election Commission, on the existence of jurisdictional facts. When the Rules specifically confer such power on the Election Commission, the failure of the Election Commission to decide the preliminary jurisdictional issue, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶69

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 10 :

¶70

The 1^st respondent-Kerala State Election

¶71

Commission ought to have taken into consideration the fact that if the maintainability of the petition is decided as a preliminary issue, it would not cause prejudice to any of the parties. The petitioner being an incumbent member and the President of the Panchayat, subjecting the petitioner to undergo a trial without deciding the very maintainability of the petition itself, would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

¶72

Relying on the judgment in Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons [(2007) 8 SCC 559] , the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is distinction between jurisdictional facts and adjudicatory facts, which cannot be ignored. The facts upon which jurisdiction of a Court, of a Tribunal or of an authority depends, can be said to be jurisdictional facts. If the jurisdictional facts exist, a Court, Tribunal or authority has jurisdiction to decide the issue. If such facts do not exist, the Court, Tribunal or authority cannot act.

¶73

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 11 :

¶74

Relying on the judgment in Nusli Neville Wadia

¶75

v. Ivory Properties [2020 (6) SCC 557] , the counsel urged that in a case, jurisdictional facts as well as adjudicatory facts, may arise. When jurisdictional facts to entertain are missing, the Court/Tribunal cannot act at all. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P1 order of the Election Commission cannot stand the scrutiny of law and it is liable to be quashed, directing the Election Commission to decide the preliminary issue first before proceeding any further.

¶76

The fact situation involved in W.P.(C) No.11013 of 2023 is also more or less similar. In the said writ petition, the 2^nd respondent filed a complaint seeking to disqualify the writ petitioner. The petitioner raised objection and filed an I.A. on 22.01.2023 requiring the Election Commission to consider whether Kerala Congress (P.J.Joseph) is a political party so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(a). The petitioner would urge that the 2^nd respondent did not file any objection to the I.A. Nevertheless, the Election Commission arbitrarily rejected the I.A, filed by the petitioner.

¶77

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 12 :

¶78

The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

¶79

No.11013 of 2023 urged that the proceedings before the Election Commission have all the trappings of judicial proceedings under Order 7, Rule 11(a) to Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A petitioner can file an application for rejection. The I.A filed by the petitioner has the support of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on the judgment in Saleem Bhai and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2003 (1) SCC 557] , the counsel for the petitioner urged that the Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder, are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant, at any time before the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, when the petitioner submitted an IA, seeking to decide the preliminary issue, the Election Commission ought not have rejected the same. The

¶80

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 13 :

¶81

counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Muhammed Haneefa v. Saudath Ashraf and others [2013 (3) KLT 370] also.

¶82

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf

¶83

of the Kerala State Election Commission and resisted the writ petitions. The Standing Counsel representing the 1^st respondent-Election Commission pointed out that under Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Rules, 2000, Election Commission has to complete proceedings expeditiously and positively within 120 days. The 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.8382 of 2023 filed the original petition on 20.04.2022. The writ petitioner appeared in the case on 03.06.2022. Repeated adjournments were made in the case. The petitioner filed her objections on 22.09.2022. The trial of the case commenced on 03.11.2022. The petitioner’s evidence was soon closed thereafter. Till that time, the writ petitioner did not move the Tribunal to decide any preliminary issue.

¶84

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 14 :

¶85

For the 1^st time, an application to decide

¶86

preliminary issue was made as per I.A. on 22.01.2023. For the reasons advanced in Ext.P4 order, the Election Commission rejected the application on 24.01.2023. The Election Commission can very well decide the issue of the existence of political party so as to attract Section 3(1)(a), after taking evidence. The issue involved may take the shape of a mixed question of facts and law. At any rate, the petitioner was not justified in filing an application to decide the maintainability issue, after commencement of trial and closure of evidence by the petitioner.

¶87

The Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Unni K.G. v. N. Abdul Rasheed and another [2010 (1) KHC 176] and urged that even where an issue regarding maintainability is raised, the Election Commission need not consider the issue as a preliminary one and that question with regard to disqualification has to be decided after a full trial. The Standing counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Gafoor T.P. v. Kerala State

¶88

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 15 :

¶89

Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others

¶90

[2015 (2) KHC 231] , wherein this Court held that a particular adjudicatory forum, either acting as Court or as a quasi judicial authority has necessary power to entertain an issue for adjudication. In view of the law laid down by this Court and taking into consideration the entire proceedings in the original petition pending before the 1^st respondent-Kerala State Election Commission, no interference is called for by this Court at this stage, contended the Standing Counsel.

¶91

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1^st respondent-Kerala State Election Commission and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶92

The argument of the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.8382/2023 and 8421/2023 is that there is no registered political party in the name Kerala Congress (PJ Joseph Group) and therefore the jurisdictional fact to entertain a complaint does not exist. Therefore, the Election Commission is bound to consider the petitioner's application

¶93

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 16 :

¶94

and decide the preliminary objection. According to the petitioner, Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 contemplates preliminary examination by the Election Commission, on the existence of jurisdictional fact. When the complaint itself is not maintainable, the petitioner cannot be subjected to a trial.

¶95

It has to be noted that the Election Commission is statutorily bound to complete the proceedings expeditiously and positively within 120 days. When the statute restricts the period within which a dispute has to be resolved, it will be open to the Election Commission to decide on how the complaint be proceeded with.

¶96

In the case of the petitioner, the original petition was filed on 20.04.2022. The writ petitioner appeared in the proceedings on 03.06.2022. The case was repeatedly adjourned. The writ petitioner filed objections only on 22.09.2022.

¶97

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 17 :

¶98

The trial of the case started on 03.11.2022. The evidence of the writ petitioner was closed soon thereafter. Even when the petitioner adduced evidence, the petitioner did not seek to decide the maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. The petitioner made such an application to decide preliminary issue only on 22.01.2023.

¶99

In the facts of the case, when the Election Commission is bound to decide the whole issue within a period of 120 days, taking into account the delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the request to decide a preliminary issue, this Court is of the view that the Election Commission is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. This Court has held in Unni K.G. v. N. Abdul Rasheed and another [2010 (1) KHC 176] that even where an issue regarding maintainability is raised, the Election Commission need not consider the issue as a preliminary one and that the question with regard to disqualification can be decided after a full trial.

¶100

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 18 :

¶101

In Abdul Gafoor P.P. v. Kerala State Election

¶102

Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2015 (2) KHC 231] , this Court held that a particular adjudicatory forum, either acting as a court or as a quasi judicial authority, has necessary power to entertain as issue for adjudication. The lack of merit of the matter does not detain each from adjudicating the issue. Once this Court comes to a conclusion that the authority has necessary power or jurisdiction to adjudicate, it cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict the said power.

¶103

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11013/2022 urged that proceedings before the Election Commission have all the trappings of judicial proceedings under Order 7, Rule 11(a) to Rule 11(d). Therefore, the petitioner has a right to file an application for rejection. Once the petitioner files such an application, the Election Commission has to decide such an application.

¶104

It is to be noted that Order 7 Rule 11(a) to Rule 11(d) has not been specifically made applicable to the

¶105

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases : 19 :

¶106

Election Commission in the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 as per Section 5 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. Therefore, when the statute requires the Election Commission to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner and within 120 days, the Election Commission will have necessary discretion either to consider an issue as preliminary issue or to decide all the issues finally.

¶107

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the Election Commission, in the impugned orders. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.

¶108

Sd/-

¶109

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶110

aks/01.08.2023

¶111

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

¶112

: 20 :

¶113

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8382/2023

¶114

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

¶115

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.04.2022 TAKEN TO FILE AS O.P NO: 7 OF 2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN JULY, 2022 (DATE NOT SPECIFIED) Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN DATED 22.01.2023 IN I.A NO: 11 OF 2023 IN O.P NO: 7 OF 2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2023 IN I.A NO: 11 OF 2023 IN O.P NO: 7 OF 2022

¶116

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶117

ANNEXURE R1(A)	THE PHOTOCOPY	OF THE EXTRACT OF DIARY
	IN O.P. NO. FILES OF THE 1 TYPED COPY OF	07/2022 PENDING ON THE ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SAME
ANNEXURE R1(B)	THE PHOTOCOPY 23-03-2022 OF	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
	W.P (C) NO. 87	14/2022
ANNEXURE R1(C)	THE PHOTOCOPY	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	13-06-2022 OF	THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
	W.A NO. 660/20	22

¶118

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

¶119

: 21 :

¶120

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8421/2023

¶121

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶122

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.02.2022 TAKEN TO FILE AS O.P NO: 3 OF 2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN JULY, 2022 (DATE NOT SPECIFIED) Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN DATED 22.01.2023 IN I.A NO: 09 OF 2023 IN O.P NO: 3 OF 2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2023 IN I.A NO: 09 OF 2023 IN O.P NO: 7 OF 2022

¶123

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶124

ANNEXURE R1(A) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DIARY IN O.P. NO.03/2022 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF THE SAME ANNEXURE R1(B) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-03-2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P (C) NO. 8714/2022 ANNEXURE R1(C) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-06-2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO. 660/2022

¶125

W.P.(C) No.8382/2023 & connected cases

¶126

: 22 :

¶127

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11013/2023

¶128

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶129

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION DATED 22.04.2022 IN O.P NO. 8 OF 2022 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶130

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.P. 8/2022 DATED AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶131

Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW6 IN O.P. 8/2022

¶132

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 22.01.2023 IN I.A NO. 10/2023 IN O.P NO. 8/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶133

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2023 IN I.A NO 10/2023 IN O.P NO. 8/2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶134

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶135

ANNEXURE R1(A) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DIARY IN O.P. NO. 08/2022 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF THE SAME ANNEXURE R1(B) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-03-2022 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN W.P (C) NO. 8714/2022 ANNEXURE R1(C) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-06-2022 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN W.A NO. 660/2022

Usha Vijayan v. the Kerala State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Vijayan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravichandran Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan T.K. Vs the District Collector

Rasiya Vs Ani P N (Corrected)*

Jessy Vs Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo)

Usha Vijayan Vs the Kerala State Election Commission