MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O.P. No. 22359/99 is the appellant. The petitioner is a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha (1999) from No. 2 Cannanore Parliamentary Constituency scheduled to be held on 11.9.1999. The challenge in the Original Petition was against Ext. P5 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent rejecting petitioner's request to show his name in the ballot paper as 'Mullappally Ramachandran'. He had also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to show his name as 'Mullappally Ramachandran' in the ballot paper. The learned Single Judge before whom the Original Petition came up for admission dismissed the same in limine. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had submitted his nomination paper in the prescribed form from the 1st respondent wherein his name was shown as 'Mullappally Ramachandran'. After scrutiny his nomination was accepted on 20.8.1999. The name of the petitioner is shown as 'Mullappally Ramachandran' in Ext. P12 list of contesting candidates whose nominations had been found valid. Thereafter the 1st respondent directed the appellant and other candidates to specify the manner in which their names should appear in the ballot paper. The appellant wanted his name to be shown as 'Mullappaily Ramachandran' in the ballot paper. The above request was rejected by the 1st respondent under Ex. P5 for the reason that the name of the appellant as shown in the electoral roll does not tally with the name proposed to be shown in the ballot paper. This view was taken by the 1st respondent in spite of the fact that the appellant had contended that his full name is 'Mullappaily Ramachandran' and that he is popularly known by that name.

(3.) According to the appellant, Ext. P5 proceedings had been issued by the 1st respondent without jurisdiction. The provisions contained under R.8(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 invoked by the 1st respondent can have application only where the concerned candidate makes a request for correction in the list of validily nominated candidates, on the ground that his name is incorrectly spelt or his name is otherwise incorrectly shown in his nomination paper or is different from the name by which the popularly known. None of these conditions are available in the case of the appellant and therefore, R.8(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules should not have been invoked by the 1st respondent There are other contentions also taken by the appellate challenging Ext. P5.