RAMACHANDRAN Vs. K OMANAKUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in O.P. (Election) 36 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff of Mavelikkara is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner and the respondent were candidates from Ward No. 1 of Chunakara Grama Panchayat at the three tier Panchayat election held on 28.9.2000. The revision petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 29 votes. The respondent filed the Original Petition for setting aside the election of the revision petitioner and also for a declaration that he is elected to Ward No. 1 of Chunakara Grama Panchayat. The learned Munsiff, who is designated for dealing with the Election O.P., accepted the contentions of disqualification and declared the election of the revision petitioner as null and void. But the further relief of declaration that the respondent shall be declared elected was refused. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner as A.S. (Election) 7 of 2002 before the District Court, Alappuzha was also dismissed.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: The revision petitioner and respondent were candidates to the three tier election to Ward No. 1 of Chunakara Grama Panchayat of Mavelikkara Taluk. The due date for filing nomination was on 1.9.2000 and the scrutiny of the nomination papers took place on 2.9.2000. The nomination filed by the revision petitioner as well as the respondent were accepted and the election was held on 27.9.2000 and the results were declared on 28.9.2000. The revision petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 29 votes. The respondent filed the petition to declare the election of the revision petitioner as void on the ground that the revision petitioner was disqualified to contest as a candidate in an election to Panchayat, either Village or Block or Jilla as per the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act on the two grounds enumerated below: -

(3.) The revision petitioner resisted the application. It was contended that the Original Petition filed is defective as there were violations of the provisions contained in S.102 and 103 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It was also contended that there was violation of the mandatory provisions contained in S.89(2) of the Act. It was contended that the revision petitioner was not a defaulter in payment of dues to the Government was false. It was contended that the Cooperative Bank will not be Government as contended by the respondent. Further, it was contended that he was not a defaulter to that Cooperative Bank. The allegation that he caused loss to the Panchayat by not assessing the building constructed by him to local municipal tax is denied. It was contended that he was not a defaulter to the local authority. So, he prayed for a dismissal of the Original Petition.