ANCY THOMAS Vs. RAJI CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the first respondent were elected members of the Idukki Block Panchayat representing Division No.13 and Division No.2 respectively in the election held for the Local Self Government Institutions in December 2020. Idukki Block Panchayat consists of a total of 13 divisions, of which two members belonged to Kerala Congress (M) P.J. Joseph Group and five to the Indian National Congress (INC), giving the UDF coalition majority of seven members. After the election, at the instance of the District leaders of UDF, arrangements were made for ruling the Idukki Block Panchayat. On 21/12/2020 the first respondent had given a sworn declaration before the Secretary, Idukki Block Panchayat, showing her association with the political party as Indian National Congress. On 30/12/2020 the first respondent herein was elected as the President. As per an understanding arrived on 10/1/2021 among the UDF coalition, the President should vacate the position after one year and accordingly, he resigned. On a decision of the District Congress Committee taken on 5/2/2022, the President issued a whip to cast their votes in favour of the petitioner. Idukki District Congress Committee also convened a meeting of the members and gave direction in writing as a whip.

(2.) On 7/2/2022, a meeting was convened for the election of the new President of the Block Panchayat in which the first respondent herein stood as a candidate with the support of LDF members and he was elected as the new President of the Block Panchayat. The petitioner challenged the same by filing OP No.5 of 2022 before the second respondent, State Election Commission to declare that the first respondent has incurred disqualification and for consequential reliefs. By Ext.P11 order dtd. 4/7/2023 the original petition, OP 5 of 2022 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The Commission found no proof to show any service of the whip. However, it found that the first respondent was disloyal attracting disqualification. However, since no material was produced to establish that the first respondent was aware of the decision of the party nominating the petitioner as a candidate for the post of President or placed any decision of the political party taken in the meeting of all the members, dismissed the original petition.

(3.) Heard Sri. Sachin Ramesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Deepulal Mohan learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission and Sri. Liji J.Vadakedom the learned counsel for the first respondent, and perused the records.