SHINEY AUGUSTINE Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VANNAPPURAM Grama Panchayat has 16 members. Going by the pleadings, five of them, including the writ petitioner and the second respondent, belonged to Kerala Congress (J ). The writ petitioner was elected President of that panchayat. A. J. Jose belonging to CPI (M) was elected Vice President. A motion of no confidence signed by different members, including the writ petitioner, was carried against A. J. Jose on 13/11/2008.

(2.) THE second respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the Kerala State Election Commission, hereinafter, 'commission', for short, seeking a declaration that the writ petitioner has ceased to be a member of the panchayat. She was attributed of having voted against a direction, duly issued to her to vote against the aforesaid no confidence motion. She was also charged of having voluntarily given up the membership of the political party to which she belonged. After hearing the evidence of witnesses, including the second respondent herein as PW 1 and two other members of the Kerala Congress (J) as PW 2 and RW 1 and considering the documentary evidence, the Commission issued Ext. P3 order, overruling the writ petitioner's objections contained in Ext. P2 and holding that it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that she was elected to the panchayat as a member of the Kerala Congress (J) under the banner of LDF and that she has deserted Kerala Congress (J) and she has voluntarily given up her membership of that political party, though she is not liable to be disqualified for violating any duly issued direction. This is under challenge.

(3.) THE contention of the writ petitioner, as projected by her learned counsel, is that, it having been found that no whip was duly issued to vote against the no confidence motion moved against A. J. Jose, the further finding in Ext. P3 that the writ petitioner has voluntarily given up membership of Kerala Congress (J) is without the authority of law and is based merely on surmises and conjectures and wholly unreasonable. It is further contended and argued that on the basis of the pleadings in Ext. P1, the cause of action projected is solely on the basis of the action in relation to the voting in the meeting where the no confidence motion against A. J. Jose was considered and any other act, if at all, that could be attributed against her, as found by the Commission, was clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation.