VINODKUMAR Vs. FAIZAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a voter in Ward No. 14 of Koduvally Grama Panchayat. A petition filed by him before the Kerala State Election Commission seeking an order that the first respondent is disqualified stands allowed as per Ext.P1 order. Today, vide separate judgment, that order has been confirmed. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Commission that in view of Ext.P1, the Commission ought to have further declared that the first respondent is disqualified and is not qualified to be chosen in the Panchayat at any level in view of Ss.29(f) and 34(1)(n) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

(2.) S.29(f) of the Act provides that a person shall not be qualified for chosen to fill a seat in a Panchayat at any level unless he has not been disqualified under any other provision of the Act. The said provision gets automatically attracted when a member is disqualified in terms of S.35(1) of the Act. The incurring of the disqualification under S.35(1)(q) is automatic because, S.35(1) opens by saying that a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he has failed to file declaration of his assets within the time limit prescribed under S. 159. S.34(1)(n) states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat at any level, if he is disqualified under any other provision of the Act.

(3.) S.36(1) provides for filing a petition before the State Election Commission for decision on a question as to whether a member has become disqualified under S.35 except clause (n) thereof. The provision in sub-s.(2) of S.36 empowering the Commission to pass an interim order as to whether a member may continue in office or not till a decision is taken on the petition filed under S.36(1), abundantly enforces the conclusion that the effect of disqualification under S.35(1)(q) is automatic. This is why S.35 or 36 does not, in any manner, make the disqualification conditional on any declaration or direction by the Commission. For the aforesaid reasons, the consideration of Ext.P2 petition by the Commission is unnecessary because, the law takes its course and the statutory conclusions referable to S.29(f) and 34(1)(n) are automatic and run along with the incurring of the disqualification under S.35(1)(q). The first respondent would, therefore, stand disqualified in terms of Ss.29(f) and 34(1)(n) also. It is so declared. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.