SUKUMARAKURUP Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this original Petition is whether the Election Tribunal (Principal Munsiff s Court)has the jurisdiction to decide the election dispute on the improper acceptance of nomination after the said question was decided by State Election Commission earlier at the time of receipt of nomination.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: The petitioner was a candidate to Ward No. 5, Alamthara Constituency in Nellanad Grama Panchayat, the nomination of the petitioner was opposed by the 3rd respondent on the ground that he was having subsisting contract with the Government and therefore, he was disqualified as per S. 34 (1) (g) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj act, hereinafter referred to as'the Act'. The Returning Officer overruled the objections and the matter was taken up before the State Election Commission who upheld the order of the Returning Officer. Consequently, the Petitioner's nomination was found to have been validly received. In the election held on 23. 3. 1995 he was declared elected and then became President of the Panchayat.

(3.) THE main ground of attack of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal and the principal District Judge is excluded in the light of the order of the Election commissioner under S. 34 (2) of the Act. S. 34 of the Act deals with disqualification of the candidates. Sub-s. 2 of S. 34 enables the State Election commissioner to decide the question as to whether a candidate has become qualified subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-s. 1 of S. 34 of the Act. THE decision of the State Election Commission on such question shall be final. THE power of the State Election Commission is set out in S. 139 of the Act. THE Commission has got power to hold enquiry and for that purpose will have the powers of the Civil Court. S. 147 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court among other things on any decision given by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with the election. THErefore, according to learned senior counsel, the question whether the petitioner was having subsisting contract with the Government was raised at the time of scrutiny of his nomination and the objection having been rejected by the Returning r officer and after reference the State Election Commission confirmed the finding of the Returning Officer. THErefore, this issue has been concluded in the light of barring of the jurisdiction of the civil court under S. 147 of the Act. THE election Tribunal cannot go into the same question once again. He further submitted that since the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction their orders are nullity. In this context, he drew my attention to the decision in Dhulabhai v. State of M. P. (AIR 1969 SC 78) and M/s. East India Corporation. Ltd. v. Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (AIR 1991 SC 1095) in support of his contention that exclusion of jurisdiction bars the further consideration of the matter by the tribunal. THE State Election Commissioner's order has become final and therefore, there is no scope for reopening the said question before the election court. THEre is a statutory bar for adjudicating the said issue once again and therefore the orders of the Election Tribunal and the Principal district. Judge should be quashed.