ELSAMMA Vs. ANNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is the outcome of an election held on September 16, 1980, from Ward No. I of Edathua Panchayat reserved for women. The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 were candidates. The counting of votes took place in the office of the Edathua Panchayat on the next day. The petitioner and the first respondent having polled equal number of votes, the second respondent claimed a re-counting and that was allowed. Even after recounting, the result remained the same. It is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent then pointed out that a re-election will be the means to find a solution of the deadlock; while the petitioner pointed out that R.64 of the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election. Disputes) Rules, 1963, should be resorted to. The Returning Officer then said that he would consider the matter within a few minutes and the candidates and their agents were asked to remain outside the office. Accordingly, the petitioner and her agents came out of the office and remained outside. Within a few minutes, the first respondent and her agents got into the Returning Officer's room and came out with the announcement that she has been declared elected by drawing of lots. The protest made by the petitioner to the Returning Officer had no effect, and finally the first respondent was declared elected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed O. P. (Election) No. 62/80 under S.22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 read with R.5 of the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963, hereinafter called respectively the Act and the Rules, before the Principal Munsiff, Alleppey, the third respondent herein. Several grounds were taken in the petition and one of the main grounds was that there was non compliance of R.64 of the Rules and that has materially affected the result of the election. Evidence, both oral and documentary; was adduced on either side. On the conclusion of the trial, the third respondent dismissed the petition. Ext. P1 is the true copy of the order.

(2.) At the time when the Original Petition came up for hearing the main ground taken by Sri. Kuriakose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, is that the learned Munsiff seriously erred by laying down a wrong law relating to the manner and service of notice contemplated under R.64; and that the very approach made by him to the material question involved was wrong. This, according to the counsel, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and the order impugned is therefore liable to be interfered with.

(3.) R.64 of the Rules reads: