RAMACHANDRAN Vs. RAVIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgment dated 23/07/2008 of the District Judge, Manjeri allowing an election petition filed by the first respondent impeaching the election of the first respondent, the returned candidate as a member to the Vattamkulam Grama Panchayat, in reversal of the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Ponnani dismissing that election petition. Parties are hereinafter referred to as petitioner and respondent, though ranked differently in the election petition, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the revision can be summed up thus: The first respondent filed the nomination for contesting election from Ward No. IV of Vattamkulam Grama Panchayat in the general election held in 2005. The revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 also filed nominations to contest election from the above ward. The nominations filed by the first respondent and also third respondent were rejected at the time of scrutiny as both of them had been proposed as candidates to the election by the same voter in that ward. The nominations of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were found valid and accepted. The second respondent withdrew his nomination on its acceptance and thereby the petitioner was declared elected uncontested the first respondent challenged the election of the petitioner contending there was improper rejection of his nomination. The revision petitioner (the first respondent in the election petition) and also the second respondent appeared, but the revision petitioner alone contested the petition. Challenges made to his election were resisted by the revision petitioner, the returned candidate, setting forth various contentions including the maintainability of the petition as well. No oral evidence was adduced by any of the parties. Petitioner got marked Exts. A1 to A8 and Exts. X1(a) to X1(d) were also exhibited as third party exhibits after summoning and producing them by orders of the Court. The learned Munsiff, after appreciation of the materials produced with reference to the facts involved and hearing the counsel on both sides, concluded that the rejection of the nomination of the first respondent by the returning officer was in accordance with law and the challenge raised in the election petition was unworthy of merit, with the result the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court, Manjeri. The learned District Judge, after appreciating the materials and hearing the counsel on both sides, arrived at the conclusion that the nomination of the first respondent was improperly rejected by the returning officer and as such the election of the revision petitioner, the returned candidate, is liable to be set aside, and accordingly It was set aside. The revision has been filed by the returned candidate challenging the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge setting aside his election, impeaching it unsustainable under law as suffering from jurisdictional infirmity.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed the judgment of the lower Appellate Court setting aside the decision of the Trial Court as illegal, patently erroneous and unsustainable in law. Inviting my attention to the election rules applicable to the election of members to the Panchayat, learned counsel contended that the form prescribed in which the declaration of the proposer that he had not proposed any other candidate has crucial bearing on the validity of the nomination and when it is established that the proposer of the first respondent had proposed his name as well as another candidate by making false declaration, the nomination forms tendered by both such candidates were liable to be rejected. The decision of the returning officer rejecting the nomination of the first respondent which was found proper, correct and valid by the Trial Court, it is submitted, was reversed by the learned District Judge in appeal on mere surmises and conjectures without correctly appreciating the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the electoral rules thereunder. The judgment rendered by the learned District Judge setting aside the election of the revision petitioner holding that there was an improper rejection of the nomination of the first respondent, it is submitted by the learned counsel, is patently erroneous and unsustainable in law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that there is no jurisdictional infirmity leave alone any infirmity whatsoever in the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Pointing out that there is no provision in the Panchayat Raj Act or the electoral rules to treat a nomination paper of a candidate invalid for the reason that the declaration given by the proposer that he had not proposed any other candidate is incorrect, it is submitted by the learned counsel, even on the proved facts of the case where the nomination paper of the first respondent was tendered at an earlier point of time than that of the third respondent who was also proposed by the same voter the rejection of that nomination paper on account of the declaration made later in point of time by the proposer in the nomination paper of the third respondent was patently illegal. Since the nomination before the first respondent was improperly rejected as established by the facts and circumstances of the case, the election of the revision petitioner was vitiated and liable to be set aside. The learned District Judge, after considering the issue meticulously, in accordance with the legal principles applicable, being satisfied that there was an improper reception of the nomination paper of the first respondent set aside the election of the revision petitioner under the impugned judgment, which according to the learned counsel, is unassailable. It is contended by the learned counsel that the revision is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.