SURENDRAN Vs. DEVIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election to the offices of the President and Vice President of the Kollengode Grama Panchayat was held on 6.10.2005. Petitioner in W.P.C. No. 7358 of 2007 and the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 7359 of 2007 were declared elected as the President and Vice President respectively, both having won by a majority of one vote more than that of the respective candidates who contested against them, by the common second respondent, the Returning Officer. Their election was impeached by the respective candidates who contested against them, the first respondent named in the respective petitions filing separate election petitions. Common grounds were raised that votes cast by one of the Panchayat members in favour of the respective elected candidates, were void as he had not written his name on the reverse side of his ballot papers, but only subscribed his signature, infringing the rules and, thus, rendering his votes void, and also both the returned candidates had been elected by the partisan attitude of the Returning Officer, amounting to a corrupt practice, vitiating the election. The first respondent in W.P.C. No. 7358 of 2007 who contested to the office of the President against the petitioner in that writ petition and lost the election, had filed O.P. (Election) No. 3 of 2005. The first respondent in W.P.C. No. 7359 of 2007 who contested against the petitioner in that petition to the office of the Vice President and lost the election, had filed O.P. (Election) No. 19 of 2005. Both petitions were filed before the Munsiff Court, Chittur, the court having jurisdiction over the area in which the Panchayat is situated. The learned Munsiff, after separate trial over the petitions and hearing the counsel on both sides, declared the election of the returned candidate to the office of the President and Vice President as invalid and set aside their election, holding that the election to the above offices shall be decided on draw of lots, fixing the date and time for such draw in the court hall in the presence of the parties and their counsel. The final disposal of both the petitions was deferred to the date fixed for draw of lots. Propriety and correctness of the orders so passed by the learned Munsiff in the respective petitions, O.P. (Election) No. 3 of 2005 and O.P. (Election) No. 19 of 2005 is challenged by the aggrieved returned candidates elected to the office of the President and Vice President, separately, under the above two Writ Petitions.

(2.) In the election held on 6.10.2005, the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 7358 of 2007 and the first respondent in that petition contested to the office of the President, and the petitioner and the first respondent in W.P.C. No. 7359 of 2007 contested to the office of the Vice President. Petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions got nine votes each and the respective respondents in the petitions who contested against them eight votes each, and the petitioners were declared elected by the Returning Officer to the office of the President and Vice President of the Panchayat having secured a majority of one vote against their contesting candidates. A Panchayat member, namely, Sri. Santhumuthu, who cast his vote in favour of the returned candidates had not subscribed his name in the ballot papers cast in favour of the above candidates, but only put his signature and that being a violation of the Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice President) Rules, 1995, the votes cast by that member are void is the challenge raised in the election petitions. Excluding his votes, which are void, the returned candidates and their respective contesting candidates had equal votes and therefore, the election should have been proceeded by the second respondent by drawing of lots to elect the President and Vice President, was the case advanced by the contesting candidates who lost the election. The respective petitioners in the election petitions apart from examining themselves, also examined the Panchayat member, namely, Sri. Santhumuthu, whose votes cast in the election were impeached as void, as one of the witnesses, separately, in both the petitions. In O.P. (Election) No. 3 of 2005, A1 and A2 and X1 to X3 series were exhibited towards documentary evidence. In the other petition, O.P. (Election) No. 19 of 2005, X1 to X4 series were exhibited.

(3.) Though the election petitions had been tried separately and orders passed accordingly, as common questions of fact and law are involved in the Writ Petitions filed against those orders, after being heard together, the Petitions are disposed under this common judgment. Parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioners' and 'respondents' except where the rank of the respondents in the respective petition is found necessary, for the sake of convenience.