KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25893 of 2020 challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2020, whereby the writ petition was dismissed declining interference in Ext. P1 order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent Returning Officer rejecting the nomination submitted by the appellant to ward No. 16 of Nandiyodu Grama Panchayat, the third respondent in the appeal. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment of the learned single Judge, this appeal is preferred.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant submitted his nomination for contesting as a candidate from Ward No. 16 of Nandiyodu Grama Panchayat, on 19.11.2020. However, it was rejected on 20.11.2020 as per Ext. P1 order by the Returning Officer, stating that as per the District Panchayat Secretary's letter No. P4.4830/2020/TDP dated 11.11.2020, the appellant has been given the status of liability upto 2022, 2023 years in connection with construction work.

(3.) The learned single Judge, after taking into account the fact that election was notified and in accordance with Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented to such authority and in such a manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State and also taking note of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District , 1952 AIR(SC) 64 in regard to Article 329(b), and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , 1978 AIR(SC) 851, in regard to Article 329 (b) of the constitution of India, held that the writ petition submitted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained under law.