P.C. JOSEPH, S/O LATE CHACKO, AGED 67 YEARS, PONNATTU (H), VAZHITHALA PO, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI Vs. P.C. GEORGE, S/O CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, PLATHOTTOM (HOUSE), ARUVITHARA PO, PERUMNILAM KARA, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this election petition, the petitioner, who has contested as one of the candidates in No.101, Poonjar Legislative Assembly Constituency, challenges the election of the returned candidate, who is the first respondent herein. The first respondent secured a total of 63,621 votes and is far ahead of the next candidate who secured only 35,800 votes. The petitioner, who is 3rd in the list, has secured 22,270 votes only. The petitioner challenges the election of the returned candidate on the grounds under Sec. 100(1) (d)(i) and Sec. 100(1)(b) read with Sec. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) According to the petitioner, the first respondent had deliberately suppressed vital information which ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper, thereby the acceptance of his nomination was improper. It has been pleaded that the first respondent had suppressed the existence of building No.147(A) in Ward No.14 of Erattupetta Municipality in the name of his wife Smt. Usha George, and an office having a plinth area of 600 sq.ft. in block No.47 of the Erattupetta Village. It has also been pleaded that the first respondent has suppressed his share amounting to Rs. 15,000.00 at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank, the balance amount of Rs. 114/- in the name of Smt. Usha George in the SBI account at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank, Kalathukadav Branch, a recurring deposit having the monthly instalment of Rs. 100.00 in the name of Smt. Usha George at the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank M & E Branch, Erattupetta, his share of Rs. 20,000.00 at the Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank and also the share of Rs. 20,000.00 in favour of his wife at the Poojar Service Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, therefore, the acceptance of the nomination of the first respondent was nothing but improper acceptance within the meaning of Sec. 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that with a view to inducing the votes of a particular community and also by way of illegal gratification, the first respondent has morphed his photograph in a book-let relating to Aruvithura Thirunal in order to make it appear that he had also participated in the procession along with the priests and all. According to the petitioner, the said act of the first respondent is a corrupt practise which comes under Sec. 100(1)(b) read with Sec. 123 of the Act.