M G JOSEPH V C Vs. KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent was the elected candidate for Ward No. 4 of Kaiparambu Grama Patichayath, in the election held on 24-09-05. Petitioner was one of the defeated candidates. First respondent secured 714 votes while petitioner secured only 330 votes. First respondent was declared selected. Petitioner filed Election O.P.30/05, to set aside the election of first respondent and to declare himself as the elected candidate. Prayers in the election petition were:

(2.) Case of petitioner was that along with nomination paper details furnished by first respondent in Form 2A are not complete. Though there was arrears due to BSNL on the date of submission of nomination paper that was suppressed in Form No. 2A. So also educational qualification of first respondent are not fully disclosed in Form 2A. It was contended that Returning Officer should not have accepted his nomination paper. It was also contended that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against mother of first respondent and so petitioner was disqualified from contesting in the election and for all of the said reasons election of first respondent is to be set aside. First respondent filed an objection contending that election petition itself is not maintainable and there is no improper acceptance of nomination paper and election petition is to be dismissed. Prl. Munsiff, Thrissur as per order dated 17-11-06 held that non-disclosure of arrears due to BSNL is sufficient to reject nomination paper of first respondent and as it was improperly accepted, election of first respondent is liable to be set aside. It was also found that petitioner is entitled to get himself declared the returned candidate. First respondent challenged that order before District Court, Thrissur in Election Appeal 319/06 and Election Appeal 331/06. One of the appeals was challenging the finding of Munsiff that arrears of mother of first respondent is not a ground to disqualify him or to reject nomination paper of first respondent: So also finding of learned Munsiff that there is no suppression of educational qualification of first respondent was challenged in that appeal. Learned District Judge after hearing petitioner and respondent found that Form 2A does not contemplate details of arrears due to BSNL to be shown therein and therefore found that it cannot be said that there was improper acceptance of nomination paper and hence set aside the order or learned Munsiff and dismissed the election petition. Learned District Judge also confirmed finding of learned Munsiff on other grounds which was found by learned Munsiff against petitioner. C.R.P. 1067/06 and 1068/06 were filed challenging the common order in both the appeals.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent were heard.