LISSY M T Vs. K K SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the successful candidate from Ward No. 21 of Wandiperiyar Grama Panchayath in an election which was held on 24/09/2005 was the 3rd respondent in an election petition filed by the first respondent herein as Election OP 1 of 2005 before the Election Court (Munsiff's Court) Peerumedu. The first respondent herein was a defeated candidate and he filed the election petition under S.89 read with S.90 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner herein raised a preliminary objection before the Court below as to the maintainability of the election petition. The said application to consider the maintainability as a preliminary issue was registered as IA 171 of 2006. It was argued before the Court below that since paragraph 9 of the election petition alleged of corrupt practices against the petitioner herein, as per the provision to S.91(c) of the Act the election petition ought to have been accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form. Another objection raised by the petitioner herein was that the election petition was bad for non joinder of parties within the meaning of S.90 of the Act. The Court below overruled the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein holding inter alia that the election petitioner has not raised any corrupt practices as enumerated in the statute and there was no specific pleading of corrupt practice in the petition and therefore he was not obliged to file an affidavit in the prescribed form. With regard to the other objection raised by the petitioner herein the Court below said that the election petitioner has made all the contesting candidates as respondents and, therefore, there was compliance of S.90 of the said Act. It is the said order dated 13/12/2007 passed by the Court below which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was non compliance of S.91(1)(c) of the Act. The learned counsel took me through the election petition wherein after the schedule of documents there is a verification. According to the petitioner the election petition was also to be signed and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings and there is no such verification in the election petition as enjoined by S.91(1)(c) of the Act and there is only a verification after the schedule of documents. The argument is that while there is compliance of S.91(2) of the Act there is non compliance of S.91(1)(c) of the Act and this according to the learned counsel is fatal.

(3.) In the first place, the petitioner did not raise such a contention before the Court below. Secondly, the verification occurring in Ext. P1 election petition is after the schedule of documents and after the signatures of the election petitioner and his counsel. The said verification reads as follows: