V.R. SOJI S/O RAGHAVAN Vs. VEENA GEORGE MEMBER OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, ARANMULA CONSTITUENCY, VELASERI, PALAMUTTATHU, MYLAPARA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election petition is filed to declare the election of the 1st respondent, Smt.Veena George from the Aranmula Legislative Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constituency') of the Kerala State Legislature to be void under Section 100(1) (d) (i), Section 100(1)(d) (iv) and 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP Act'). Section 100 (1) reads as under:-

(2.) The short facts involved in the election petition are as under: The petitioner is an elector of the constituency. The election was held on 16.05.2016 and result was declared on 19.05.2016. The 1st respondent Smt. Veena George has won the election and the total number of votes obtained by her was 64,523 as against the nearest candidate Adv. Sri. K. Sivadasan Nair who got 56,877 votes. The election petition raises two specific grounds. One is that the returned candidate has disclosed the details of the Bank account of her spouse in Form No.26 submitted at the time of delivering nomination paper in terms of Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Rules') and secondly, she was involved in the corrupt practice of demanding vote on the ground that she belongs to Orthodox Syrian Christian community.

(3.) First allegation is regarding non-disclosure of the details of Bank account of her spouse in Form 26. The petitioner contends that Mr.George Joseph, husband of the returned candidate, is a teacher by profession in a Higher Secondary school and is on leave. He is serving as the Secretary of Malankara Syrian Christian Association for the last 10 years. He is operating a Non Resident Ordinary Savings Bank (NROSB) account in the Federal Bank Limited, Chandanappilly Branch with Account No.12014100000857 and the address is shown as Yatheem Group, P.O Box No.50571, Dubai, UAE. The other parties in the joint account are Mathews P. Jacob and Helen Mary Mathews. It is contended that the aforesaid three persons are jointly operating the account and it is an either or survivor account. The petitioner also narrates the details of the Bank transactions undertaken by the spouse of the returned candidate. Allegation is that on 13.06.2015 Rs. 1 lakh, on 28.07.2015 Rs. 3 lakhs, on 24.08.2015 Rs. 5 lakhs, on 18.12.2015 Rs. 5 lakhs and on 24.3.2016 Rs. 50,000/- was deposited from the Housing Loan Account No.12017300002367 maintained at the same branch. It is alleged that the returned candidate, being aware of the aforesaid Bank account of her spouse had deliberately suppressed the said fact in Form 26. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit before the Returning Officer on 14/05/2016 pointing out that the respondent has suppressed the Bank account details aforementioned in Form 26 filed by her. It is contended that, on account of such non-disclosure and suppression, voters of the Constituency could form their opinion about the candidate's antecedents, which resulted in misinformation and thereby influencing the voters. Further, the nomination of the respondent was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and therefore the election of the returned candidate is to be declared void for the improper acceptance of the nomination as provided under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P.Act.