K K AHAMMED Vs. P J ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the omission to provide any consequence for an action or inaction would make the provision of an election statute directory or mandatory is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) The design of all election laws is to uphold the right to vote, a precious personal prerogative to be sedulously guarded. We are confronted with such a situation in the instant case, Petitioner's vote east in the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against 5th respondent was rejected by the Election Commission on the ground that the petitioner had failed to write his name and affix signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper instead on the facing sheet of the ballot paper. Election Commission authorised the District Collector under Section 157 (2) and (5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the President and Vice President of the District Panchayat. On 7-6-2005 eight members of the Wayanad District Panchayat submitted a notice of their intention to move a motion of no-confidence against the 5th respondent, President of the District Panchayat, before District Collector/Authorised Officer. Pursuant to the said notice the District Collector by notice dated 10-6-2005 convened a meeting of the elected members of the District Panchayat to consider the motion of no-confidence against the 5th respondent on 24-6-2005. All the 15 members of the District Panchayat participated in the meeting, out of which seven members voted in favour of the motion and seven members voted against the motion. Vote cast by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had failed to write his name and affix his signature on the reverie side of the ballot paper as per the mandate contained under Section 157(9A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since the motion was not carried in support of the majority of the members of the Panchayat the same was declared as not passed.

(3.) Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his vote approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the 4th respondent rejecting the vote cast by him and also for a direction to treat his vote as valid and pass appropriate orders. Learned single Judge accepted the plea of the writ petitioner and granted declaration that the vote cast by the petitioner is a valid vote and consequently 5th respondent was declared as ceased to be in office.