P T KARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P6, an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Ext. P1 application made by the petitioner praying for disqualifying the 3rd respondent, an elected member from Ward No. 9 of Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat.

(2.) THE ground urged in Ext. P1 is that the 3rd respondent had filed a false statement of assets and liabilities, inviting disqualification as provided under sec. 35 (q) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The basis of this claim is that when he filed the statement of assets and liabilities as required under sec. 159 of the Act, the 3rd respondent did not disclose his liability to pay the compensation awarded by the MACT, Kottayam, in MVOP 308/1987, which was confirmed by this Court in Ext. P2 judgment in MFA 256/1990.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the 3rd respondent was elected in the election held in 2005 and by then he had incurred the liability under the aforesaid award. Thereafter, he had filed a statement of his assets and liabilities as required under sec. 159 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Petitioner contends that due to his omission to indicate the liability arising out of the award as confirmed by this Court in Ext. P2, the statement filed by him is a false one and therefore under sec. 159 (3) and (4) read with sec. 35 (q) of the Act, he is liable to be disqualified from continuing as a member of the Panchayat. The plea raised by the petitioner was contested by the 3rd respondent and finally the 1st respondent passed Ext. P6 rejecting Ext. P1 and it is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.