RAJEEV ALEXANDER Vs. SEYNULLABDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The returned candidate, whose election as a member to a panchayat was set aside in an election petition, has filed this revision challenging the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below declaring his election as void under Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Though the election of the revision Petitioner was challenged on various grounds, the only ground on which his election was set aside and that alone surviving for consideration in the revision relates to the question whether Form 2A tendered by the revision Petitioner with his nomination paper to contest the election was 'fake'. He had suppressed material facts relating to the accounts maintained by him and his wife in banks withholding the outstanding sums in deposits in such accounts in the above Form, was the allegation imputed and which was held to be so by the courts below to declare his election as void. If such allegation were true whether non-furnishing of correct particulars of the deposits in bank accounts would render Form 2A fake, is the question posed for consideration.

(2.) Election petition was preferred by an elector from the constituency, Ward No. 18 of Mundakayam Grama Panchayat from which the revision Petitioner was elected as the returned candidate in the General Elections held to the Panchayats in 2005-06. Pending the appeal preferred by the revision Petitioner against the decision in the election petition declaring his election as void, Petitioner in the election petition passed away and another elector in the same constituency got himself impleaded as a Respondent in such appeal. However, in the revision, after accepting notice, that Respondent remain absent.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner. Pointing out the various grounds raised in the petition to impeach the election, a copy of which is produced with the revision as Ext. A-1, the learned Counsel urged that all other grounds except the non-furnishing of accurate particulars of deposits in the bank accounts by the candidate and his wife with the nomination paper, set up to impeach his election have been found meritless. In the present era of internet banking, where anyone who knows the account number of another can easily make deposits in the account of the other, it is the submission of the counsel, the default or failure of a candidate to state the accurate particulars of his deposits and that of his wife in Form 2A tendered with the nomination paper is not at all sufficient to conclude that such Form 2A tendered is fake as spelt out by Section 52A of the Act. At any rate, furnishing of inaccurate particulars over deposits in bank accounts unless it is established that it was wilful or deliberate by no stretch of imagination can be construed to hold that Form 2A tendered with the nomination paper with such inaccurate particulars would render it fake, is the further submission of the counsel. All other grounds to impeach the election of the returned candidate which included imputations that he is a contractor against whom vigilance cases are pending, that he has suppressed ownership of motor vehicles, three lorries, and he and his wife are defaulters to the Government - State and Central-, and local bodies, have all been found meritless and negatived by both the courts below, but, inaccuracy in the statement given in Form 2A over the deposits in bank accounts maintained by him and his wife which was set up as yet another ground to challenge the election, was approved by the courts below, to set aside his election concluding that such inaccuracy over deposits would render his Form 2A fake, submits the counsel. Inaccuracy or incorrect particulars will not render an instrument fake and it must be shown that the mischief sought to be avoided by the submission of Form 2A with the particulars therein was wilfully and deliberately flouted by the candidate in furnishing the information called for from the candidate contesting the election, according to the counsel. There is nothing in the case to indicate other than that there was some inaccuracy in stating what exactly was the amount on deposit in the bank account maintained by the revision Petitioner and his wife and that by itself would not render Form 2A fake to set aside his election, is the submission of the counsel. Reliance is placed on Lucy Joseph v. Elikutty James and another,2009 4 KHC 4431, Gopalakrishnan v. Sarasi,2009 2 KerLT 882, Shaji Mathew v. Thomas Chacko, 2010 2 KerLT 148, Karunakaran v. Chandran Panikkar, 2010 2 KerLT 379 Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai, 2010 2 KerLT 1022 to contend that the Act does not contemplate of treating Form 2A fake, for the reason that the particulars stated therein are not correct or inaccurate. In the absence of specific pleading and proof there was material suppression of facts which would render Form 2A fake on the basis of inaccurate or incorrect particulars furnished in such Form, that alone, the election of the returned candidate is not liable to be set aside, is the submission of the counsel urging for reversing the concurrent decision rendered by the courts below annulling his election as a member of a panchayat.