VIKRAMAN UNNITHAN Vs. KOSHY M KOSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No. 8 of Thazhakkara Village in the Panchayat Elections held in 1995. O. P. 6/1995 was filed before the Election Tribunal (Munsiff, Mavelikkara) by the first respondent herein challenging the validity of the election. As per order dated 14.10.1997 the Election Tribunal accepted the contention of the present revision petitioner who was first respondent in the O. P. that the O. P. was not properly presented and dismissed the same under S.93(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The present first respondent thereupon took up the matter before the District Judge, Alappuzha who is the designated authority to hear appeals with regard to election matters. As per the impugned order the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and found that the election petition was properly filed and directed the Election Tribunal to proceed with the petition in accordance with law.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on S.89(1) Panchayat Raj Act which insists that election petitions should be presented in person. I was also taken through the decision reported in Saraswathy v. Kamala and Others (1997) (1) KLJ 450) in that regard. According to the learned counsel, the failure on the part of the Chief Ministerial Officer to record that the petition was presented in person by the party or counsel is material. The counsel also took me through the certified copy of the petition obtained from the Election Tribunal to show that even the signature of the present first respondent appearing on the front page (docket) of the petition is a subsequent interpolation and that this reveals an attempt on the part of the first respondent to make out that he was actually present in Court. The learned counsel further submits that the observations in the judgment of the Court below that presumption is available in favour of the present first respondent is absolutely unjustified and that independent evidence should have been allowed to be taken in the matter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in the absence of specific Rules in the C. R. P. akin to the R.207 to 219 of the High Court Rules, the Chief Ministerial Officer was not bound to take extra effort to record anywhere that the petition was presented by the petitioner or his counsel in person and that as per the existing Rules available under the Civil Rules of Practice he has made whatever entries that were expected and necessary.