LAWS(KER)-2001-9-38

T A AHAMMED KABEER Vs. A A AZEEZ

Decided On September 13, 2001
T.A.AHAMMED KABEER Appellant
V/S
A.A.AZEEZ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides on the aspect of maintainability of this Election Petition based on preliminary objections raised by the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondents contested the election from No. 125 Eravipuram Legislative Assembly Constituency, the polling with regard to which took place on 10-5-2001. The petitioner was a Muslim League candidate and the first respondent represented the Revolutionary Socialist Party. When the results of the election was declared on 13-5-2001, the first respondent was declared elected with a margin of 21 votes. While the petitioner got 55617 votes, the first respondent got 55638 votes. The details of votes secured by other candidates (respondents 2 to 4) are not relevant for deciding the present controversy and hence not mentioned here.

(3.) The challenge made by the petitioner with regard to the declaration of result is under several heads. He contends that the 4 persons named in Annexure A voted twice, the result of which is that both votes cast by them would be void. The next allegation is that the 9 persons mentioned in Annexure B, though they were voters included in the electoral roll, were actually, deceased as on the date of election and that in their place some other impersonators voted. As regards the 13 voters mentioned in Annexure C, the allegation is that they were actually abroad and that there was impersonation in their place. Likewise, as regards the 17 voters mentioned in Annexure D, the allegation is that they were actually out of station on the date of poll and that there was impersonation resulting in undue benefit to the first respondent. As regards the five persons mentioned in Annexure E, the allegation is that by the time they reached the polling booth somebody else had already cast their votes and that they could only give tender votes which were not counted. The petitioner contends that the votes given in their name by impersonators went in favour of the first respondent and those votes were also taken into account while declaring the result.