REGI FRANCIS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P8 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission dismissing an application filed by the petitioner seeking disqualification of the second respondent who was one of the elected candidates in the Elikkulam Grama Panchayath in the general elections to the local bodies held in the year 2005.

(2.) Both the petitioner as well as the second respondent were elected as the members of the Panchayath. According to the petitioner they were put up by the United Democratic Front which comprised of Indian National Congress and Kerala Congress (Mani). The second respondent was the official nominee of the UDF for the post of President. She was defeated by one vote. When the President resigned from the post in 2007, fresh elections were conducted on 30/11/2007. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the relevant time the second respondent deserted the UDF and contested as the candidate of rival LDF. This, according to the petitioner, amounted to disqualification under the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Complaint of the petitioner is that despite the fact that sufficient evidence was adduced to prove disqualification of the second respondent, the Election Commission, on an appreciation of the facts and evidence involved in the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the second respondent has incurred disqualification under the provisions of the Act and dismissed the original petition.

(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the Election Commission did not consider the pleadings of the 2nd respondent in the written submission wherein she had not specifically denied that she was a candidate of congress at the time of election and formed part of UDF coalition. Further the Election Commission did not consider the evidence adduced in the case by way of Ext. X1 and X5 which inter alia proved the averments in the petition and the same were rejected on the ground that the Secretary who maintained the said register was not examined. Further it is also found that petitioner has not taken any steps to call for the ballot papers that were used in the subject voting.