KALATHUMPADIKKAL MUSTHAFA Vs. P.M. BASHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point is as to whether the petitioner is a person disqualified for being chosen as and for being a Councillor of the Nilambur Municipality. Section 90(1)(j) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short) is as follows:-

(2.) Annexure A6 notice issued by the Special Grade Secretary of the Panchayat shows that a sum of Rs. 468/- was demanded from the petitioner as dues for the period from 1.4.2009 to 16.6.2009. The dues is in respect of the stage carriage bus bearing Registration No.KL-10Z 6006 owned by the petitioner for having used the bus stands of the Panchayat. The petitioner has no case that Annexure A6 notice was not served on him and cannot also raise such a contention in view of an earlier writ petition. The petitioner had challenged the notice in W.P.(C) No.13209/2009 in the capacity of the President of the Private Bus Operators Association along with its Secretary. It was clarified by the judgment as well as the order in the review petition therein that the demand could be sustained only in respect of one bus stand. This is because only one of the two bus stands of the Panchayat was operational and the other admittedly remained closed for maintenance work.

(3.) Both the courts below have uniformly found that the petitioner has used one of the two bus stands which was functional as the registered owner of the stage carriage KL-10 Z 6006. Ext.A6 demand notice has not been quashed in W.P.(C) No.13209/2009 and the demand therein has been clarified as one pertaining to the bus stand which was functional. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner has not kept arrears of any kind to the Panchayat inviting disqualification under Section 90(1)(j) of the Act. Thus the courts below have on the basis of evidence categorically held that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner by the returning officer has not vitiated the election.