A MUJEEB REHMAN Vs. V S SULOCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election of the returned candidate was called in question on the ground that there was an improper reception of 28 void votes. The election petitioner therefore impleaded only the returned candidate as a respondent to the election petition under Section 166 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Thereafter the election petition was sought to be amended by incorporating a relief of declaration that the election petitioner is the duly elected candidate.

(2.) THE period of 30 days for presentation of an election petition under Section 165 of the Kerala Municipality Act had however expired. The election petitioner contended that 28 void votes have in addition been improperly received tilting the result of the election. The election petitioner sought to implead the other contesting candidates also as respondents to the election petition. Such a procedure was warranted in view of Section 166 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

(3.) THE amendment to the extent that 28 void votes were improperly received in addition to those mentioned in the election petition is however permissible. This is only a material particular to amplify the material facts mentioned in the election petition to set aside the election. A reference in this connection to the decision in Abdulla v. Jose (2012 (1) KLT 22) is apposite. Resultantly the order in I.A.No.6417 of 2011 in O.P. (Election) No.16 of 2010 on the file of the court of the III Additional Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram is modified as above. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.