SULEKHA IBRAHIM Vs. GEORGE THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected to the Pallarimangalam Panchayat from Ward No. 3. The respondent herein filed a petition under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the Munsiff, Moovattupuzha to declare the petitioners election as invalid and void and also to declare that one Smt. Iysha Abdul Rasheed has been duly elected from Ward No. 3 of the Panchayat. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the Election Petition on the ground that all the candidates who were duly nominated to the election were not joined in the Election Petition and therefore, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Munsiff by the impugned order overruled the objection and held that in view of the provisions contained in S.90 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Election Petition is not liable to be dismissed for no - joinder of necessary parties. The order is seriously challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the lower court should have dismissed the petition in view of the provisions contained in R.5(3) of the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963. He also placed much reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Joseph v. B.D.O., Angamaly ( 1989 (2) KLT 411 ). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the court below and urged that there is no ground for interference.

(3.) The question arising for consideration is whether the candidates who were validly nominated but withdrew before the date for withdrawal should be made parties to an Election Petition filed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act when the prayer in the petition is for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void and also for a declaration that the petitioner or any other candidate has been duly elected. No doubt, by virtue of the provisions contained in S.284 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Rules in existence prior to the coming into force of the Act shall be in force in the absence of specific Rules framed under the Act. Therefore, the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963 is applicable in this case to the extent it is not repugnant to the provisions of the new Act. R.5(3) of the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963 requires that the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates who were duly nominated at the election other than himself if he was so nominated. As per sub-r. 8 of R.5, the Munsiff is bound to dismiss the Election Petition, if sub-r. 3 is not complied with. In the decision in Joseph v. B.D.O., Angamaly (supra) this Court held that candidates who were validly nominated, but withdrew before the date for withdrawal should be made parties to the Election Petition and if all the candidates who were nominated to the election are not joined in the Election Petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The decision referred to above was rendered under the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 and therefore, the decision is not applicable to this case. S.90 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows: