U S SASIDHARAN Vs. K KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J:- This appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is a voter in the Mala constitutency of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The election of the members of the Assembly was held on March 23,1987 and the first respondent, who was then the sitting Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, was declared elected from Mala constituency.

(3.) The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on the ground of various corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the first respondent. In paragraphs 5(i) and 5(ii) of the election petition, the corrupt practice that was alleged by the appellant was to the effect that the second respondent, who was a candidate for the election, published a notice wherein it was declared that the second respondent was withdrawing from the contest and stated, inter alia, that it was to highlight the grievances of his community, namely, the Kudumbi Samudayam which is a backward community, that he had decided to contest the election, and that one of the demands of the community was that it should be included in the list of Scheduled Castes. Further, the second respondent stated in the notice that the Kerala Government under the leadership of the first respondent had decided to give favourable consideration in regard to his community's demand for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the second respondent declared in the notice that for obtaining their rights, it had become necessary that the first respondent should win in the election and for that purpose he was withdrawing his candidature offering full support to the first respondent. It was alleged that the second respondent published the notice at the investigation and with the assistance and initiative and at the cost of the first respondent and his supporters. Such acts constituted corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the Act.