KAVERI AMMA Vs. DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent in O. P. No. 17696/95 is the appellant. She was declared Member of Ward I of Paivalika Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod Panchayat in the election conducted on 23.9.1995. First Respondent in the Original Petition filed a petition under S.88(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the counting of votes was not properly done. That election petition was numbered as O. P. 6/95. Notice was sent to the petitioner on the above said petition along with a copy of the petition. Petitioner in the Original Petition filed her objection to the election petition raising three points. (1) Government had not notified the appropriate courts for dealing with election cases after consulting the High Court as contemplated under S.89(c) of the Act and hence the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the petition; (2) that the election petition was not properly filed in terms of S.89(2) in as much as the copies of the election petition were not attested by the petitioner under her own signature to be true copies of the petition and (3) that election petition was not signed by the petitioner in O. P. No. 6/95 in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and Annexure and schedule were not verified and signed in the manner prescribed by the Code.

(2.) Before the Principal Munsiff's Court counsel submitted arguments on the first two points and they gave up the third point mentioned above. On the first point the Court came to the conclusion that it was notified as competent court for dealing with the election petitions in consultation with the High Court and so that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On the second contention that the petitioner in the election petition did not attest the election petition under her own signature, the learned Munsiff took the view that the failure on the part of the petitioner to attest the election petition under her own signature to be true copies of the election petition is not fatal and that it is a curable defect. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff gave three days time to the petitioner in the election petition to cure the defect. This view taken by the learned Munsiff was challenged in the Original Petition. Learned single Judge upheld her contention that the defect in the election petition was fatal and that cannot be cured. That decision is under challenge.

(3.) Identical provision as is contained in S.89(2) of the Act is enacted in S.89(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act (Act 4 of 1957). Dealing with the provision, their Lordships in Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone ( AIR 1980 SC 303 ) held that the requirement that every copy of the election petition which is intended for service on the respondent should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature is a mandatory requirement and the non compliance with that requirement should result in the dismissal of the petition. According to their Lordships, the object of requiring the copy of an election petition should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition is that the petitioner should take full responsibility for its contents and that the respondent or respondents should have in their possession a copy of the petition duly attested under the signature of the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition at the earliest possible opportunity to prevent any unauthorised alteration or tampering of the contents of the petition after it is filed to the court. That decision holds the field as far as the form of the petition in an election dispute is concerned.