P P ARSHAD Vs. NELLANCHERI MUSTHAFFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal from Orders is filed by the respondent in O.P. (Election) No. 109/2005 on the file of the District Court Manjeri. C.R.P. 997/2006 is filed by the petitioner in the above said original petition. The F.A.O. is filed by the returned candidate challenging the judgment of the court below declaring his election from Ward No.14 (Paravanna Division) of Tirur Block Panchayath as void. The C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner against that part of the order of the court below by which it held that debt due to Kerala State Financial Enterprise is not a debt due to Government within the meaning of Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Act for short) and hence a candidate who is in arrears to K.S.F.E and fails to discharge the debt even after the expiry of the period specified in a bill or notice served on him is not disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of Panchayath.

(2.) The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition. The petitioner and respondents were candidates for the election to local bodies held on 26-9-2005. They contested from ward No. 14 (Paravanna Diviison) of Tirur Block Panchayath. The 1st respondent was declared elected. The petitioner filed O.P.(Election) 109/2005 for a declaration that the election of the 1st respondent was void. It was averred that the 1st respondent was disqualified for being chosen as and for being member of the Panchayat. In paragraph 2 of the Original petition it was averred that the 1st respondent was a subscriber to a chitty conducted by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises (K.S.F.E for short) He bid the chitty and received Rs. 1,34,322/- it was further averred that he committed default in payment of the future subscription from 15-8-998 and K.S.F.E had issued a demand notice claiming arrears with 12% interest from 15-8-1998 to the 1st respondent. He did not repay the amount within the time limit despite the receipt of the demand notice, and hence disqualified to contest for election. It was further averred that the 1st respondent filed nomination paper suppressing those facts and contested for the election held on 26-9-2005 This fact came to the notice of the petitioner only a few days prior to the filing of the petition. It was averred that 1st respondent suppressed material facts and hence his election to Block Panchayat is to be declared void.

(3.) Along with the original petition the petitioner filed an affidavit. In the affidavit also it was averred that 1st respondent suppressed the fact that he was a defaulter to the K.S.F.E and he filed nomination paper suppressing that fact.