RADHA KRISHNA TRADING CO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and first respondent are members of a Grama Panchayat. The first respondent filed a petition before the Kerala State Election Commission for decision on the question whether the petitioner has become disqualified under Section 35(0) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, the 'Act'. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 4th July, 2006, he caused damage to the glass top of a table, a flower vase, a steel chair, door and the telephone belonging to the panchayat. He is attributed with behaviour, unbecoming of a member of the Panchayat and of indecent behaviour to the Panchayat President, trying to assault her and by shouting obscene and abusive language at her. The petitioner filed objections denying the overt acts attributed to him and stating that the allegations are false and made with sinister motive, owing to political vendetta. In so far as the assertion of the first respondent that police had registered a crime against the petitioner, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act and under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the petitioner pleaded in his objections that it is a false case and, though registered, there is every chance of his acquittal.

(2.) The petitioner sought an order on the question of maintainability of the petition. The matter was argued on that issue. The Commission held that there is prima facie case against the writ petitioner, of his having caused loss to the panchayat property and if so found at trial, that could amount to a disqualification under Section 35(o). The petition before the Commission was thus held to be maintainable. That is under challenge.

(3.) Section 35(o) of the Act provides that a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he is liable for loss, waste or misuse caused to the panchayat. Ext. P1 petition before the Commission contains a specific plea that on 4.7.2006. the writ petitioner "caused havoc in the office of the President, and caused damage to the glass on the table, flower vase, a steel chair, door and the telephone and all other things belonging to the office of the President of the panchayat". In the writ petitioner's objections before the Commission, he pleaded that the aforesaid allegations are totally false and are made with sinister motive. He denied those allegations and further stated that he had not caused any damage to the panchayat by his act. Therefore, there is an assertion by the first respondent as to the existence of the fact that would constitute a disqualification of the writ petitioner under Section 35(o) of the Act. Contradicting that the petitioner has denied those allegations. Hence, a question arose as to whether the writ petitioner has become disqualified under Section 35(o). The decision on that question is to be rendered by the Commission on a petition. This is the dictate of Section 36(1) of the Act. Therefore, the finding of the Commission in the impugned order that the petition filed by the first respondent before it is maintainable, cannot be faulted on any jurisdictional issue or illegality. The Commission's finding that there is a prima facie case against the writ petitioner of having caused loss to the panchayat property is only a statement that there are allegations against him, made to that effect. That does not amount to a finding that the writ petitioner had committed such acts. The impugned order will not therefore stand in the way of the writ petitioner raising all questions at trial. However, having challenged the impugned order and this court having found that there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity with that order, the question of maintainability of the petition before the Commission will stand answered against the writ petitioner.