TONY PLIVER Vs. PATRIC ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I heard Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the returned candidate and Mr. G.P. Shinod, Advocate on behalf of the defeated candidate in the Civil' Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the concurrent decisions of the courts below. The revision petitioner in the three Civil Revision Petitions is the returned candidate whose election was called in question by the defeated candidate and two electors in separate election petitions. The election was sought to be declared void under sub-sections (ca) and (d)(i) of Section 178 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Act' for short). The relevant provisions thereof can be profitably extracted hereunder:

(2.) Section 108(1A) of the Act reads as under:

(3.) The election petitioners asserted that the returned candidate was convicted and sentenced to pay fine in the following cases by the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram.