KAUMUDI MADHAVAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is a returned candidate in a Panchayat Election. His election was challenged by one of the contesting candidate by filing O.P. (Election) No. 169/2000 before the District Court, Trivandrum. Petitioner herein is the 4th respondent and the Returning Officer is the second respondent in the said Original Petition. She filed an application -I..A. 1836/2003 for summoning the third respondent after citing him as a witness in the witness list. The court below by Ext. P1 declined to summon the witness on the ground that the Returning Officer being one of the respondents in the election petition, petitioner is not entitled to cite another respondent/defendant as a witness. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Syed Mohammed v. Aziz ( 1990 (2) KLT 952 ). Challenging the above order, petitioner has come up with this writ petition. The Assistant Returning Officer is also made a party as the third respondent in the proceedings.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(3.) As regards the first contention that the Returning Officer, or the Assistant Returning Officer as the case may be are not required to be parties as per S.90 of the Act is concerned, it has to be observed that S.90 does not by itself bar any person being shown as a defendant or a respondent in the election petition. S.90 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows :