VIJAYA Vs. KABEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in Election O.P.No.47 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda declaring the election held to Ward No. 8 of Irinjalakuda Municipality as void and confirmed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116 of 2003 by the District Judge.

(2.) The respondent as well the petitioner filed nominations to contest from Ward No. 8 of Irinjalakuda Municipality in the election held to the local authorities during September, 2000. The nomination filed by the respondent was rejected on the ground that he had entered into a contract with the Irinjalakuda Municipality and that contract was subsisting. The revision petitioner was declared elected in the revision. The respondent filed Election Petition No.47 of 2000 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda for a declaration that the election held to Ward No.8 of Irinjalakuda Municipality was void due to the improper rejection of his nomination. In the Original Petition it was averred that the nomination of the respondent was rejected on the ground that he was disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Councillor as he had entered into a contract with the Municipality for the construction and repair of the road as the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee under the People's Planning Programme. According to the respondent, the Returning Officer improperly rejected his nomination. It was averred that he had entered into an averment with the Local Authority in his capacity as the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee cannot be taken as a ground to reject his nomination and he was fully qualified to contest the election. It was also averred that the Municipality convened a meeting of the persons who are using the roads in the Municipality for the purpose of effecting repairs and maintenance. A number of beneficiaries attended the meeting. A beneficiary committee was formed and the respondent was elected as the Chairman of the Committee. It was also averred that the Committee was constituted as part of the Peoples Planning Programme. It was averred that the respondent had entered into the agreement in his capacity as the Chairman of the Beneficiary Committee under the Peoples Planning Programme and as such he is not disqualified from contesting the election and hence the rejection of his nomination was improper.

(3.) The petitioner contended that the Election Petition was not maintainable. It was contended that the decision taken by the Returning Officer to reject the nomination of the respondent was valid and he was not entitled to challenge that decision. It was also contended that the respondent had entered into an agreement with the Municipality and was doing the work in relation to that contract. It was also contended that the respondent and members of the Beneficiary Committee were interested in the contract entered into with the Municipality and as such he was disqualified to contest the election.