SHAJI Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who contested as a candidate in the election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No.009 Irikkur constituency, has come up by challenging the election of the respondent, who is the returned candidate, on the grounds under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100(1) (b), 100(1)(d)(i), 100(1)(d)(ii), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123 and 125A read with Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner could secure 103 votes only and the respondent secured 72,548 votes.

(2.) The pleadings in the election petition reveal that the petitioner has got a specific case that respondent had furnished a false address as his address in the nomination paper and that the said false information furnished by the respondent has materially affected the result of the election and the same is nothing but a corrupt practise. In this election petition, in its entirety, the said fact has been pleaded as one which constitutes undue influence, which is a corrupt practise under Section 123(2) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent has stated that he is a resident of 'Karuvelithara House, Congress House, Indira Bhavan, Sreekandapuram P.O.-670 631'. It is the case of the petitioner that the said information as such is false and that the respondent is a permanent resident of 'Karuvelithara House, Vadavathoor P.O., Kottayam District.'

(3.) It has also been pleaded that the respondent has shown a less market value for his properties in the records filed along with the nomination. In ground No.F, the petitioner has reproduced Section 100 of the Act and as a passing remark, it has been pleaded, 'Also the improper acceptance of Annexures-A1 to A3 by the returning officer would also make the election of the respondent liable to be set aside'. In paragraph No.1 of the election petition, the petitioner has pleaded, "The suppression of material facts and non-compliance of provisions of the Act and Rules and orders thereunder has materially affected the result of the election of the respondent. The act of the respondent also amounts to corrupt practise under the RP Act which also has materially affected the result of the election of the respondent and hence the respondent's election is liable to be declared void."