SEBASTIAN JOSEPH Vs. DEVASIA ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition under S. 115 of the Code of civil Procedure is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Alappuzha in Appeal (Election) No. 205 of 1996. That appeal was allowed. The election of the revision petitioner asmember of Ward No.V of Muttar Panchayat was declared void. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition. As held by a Bench decision of this Court, revision petition under S. 115 CPC is maintainable against the order of the district Judge in his capacity as appellate authority in election disputes relating to Panchayat election.

(2.) THE first respondent who was also a candidate and secured votes next to the revision petitioner and another filed election petition challenging the election of the revision petitioner from the aforesaid ward on the ground that the revision petitioner was disqualified in terms of s. 34 (1) (g) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. S. 34 (1) (g) reads as follows : "34. Disqualification of candidate s.- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat at any level, if he - (g) is interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the Government or the Panchayat concerned except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act. &quot ; This is the only ground for disqualification urged in the election petition. THE election of the revision petitioner was declared void as there was a subsisting contract in his name in respect of dewatering work in connection with a Padasekharam which was arranged by Punja Special Officer, a Government Official. That work was one arranged in terms of the Kerala Irrigation Works (Execution by Joint Labour) Act, 196/, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THEre was no other contract undertaken by the petitioner. This is an admitted fact.

(3.) THE Punja Special Officer cannot be equated with the Government. THE Punja Special Officer cannot represent the State Government Even if the contract entered into by the petitioner is with the Punja Special Officer, it cannot be said that it is a contract with the Government; but it is only a contract with the Punja Special officer. THE terms of the contract and also the provisions contained in Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act clearly provide that the payment to be made to the Contractor shall ultimately flow from the individual cultivators who themselves formed as Padasekhara m. THErefore, the payment for contract is from out of private pocket and not from State pocket THErefore , the conclusion arrived at by the District Judge that the transaction is with the State Government is totally incorrect. THEre is ho contract by the petitioner with the Government as envisaged under S. 34 (1)g of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.