V KUTTIKRISHNAN Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE specific case of the election petitioner is that 16 votes out of the total 60 votes declared as invalid have been cast properly in his favour. The election petitioner had admittedly preferred Ext.A3 petition to the Block Returning Officer seeking recount of the invalid votes. PWs 1 to 9 were examined on behalf of the election petitioner and RW1is the returned candidate examined. PW7 is none other than the Returning Officer himself. The court below has by the order impugned directed the alleged 60 invalid votes to be rechecked and recounted as preparatory to final disposal.

(2.) THE Returning Officer admitted in evidence that he did not personally verify the votes rejected as invalid as envisaged under Rule 47 (2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1995. It has also come out in evidence that the Returning Officer did not specify the reason for rejection in precise form by writing the alphabet 'R' as enjoined under Rule 47(4) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1995. The court below was convinced that a strong prima facie case has been established on the materials produced regarding the truth of the allegations made in the election petition.

(3.) MOREOVER a Civil Revision Petition against an interim order in the election petition is not maintainable after an amendment made to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,. The judgment in Mohan Kumar and others vs. Rajagopal and others (1999 2 KLJ 550) was rendered much before Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended. The Civil Revision Petition even if allowed will not finally terminate the proceedings in the election petition. This is an added reason for me to reject the Civil Revision Petition at the threshold. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.