Abdul Manaf vs State Election Commissioner on 8 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30887 of 2010(I)


1. ABDUL MANAF, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. RETURNING OFFICER, G 70, ELAKAMON

3. ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER

                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :08/10/2010

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                           ---------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No. 30887 OF 2010
                           --------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.15 of Elakamon Grama

Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram district, submitted his nomination

paper on 30.9.2010 for contesting in the ensuing elections. At the

time of scrutiny on 5.10.2010, the Returning Officer rejected the

petitioner’s nomination paper on the ground that the relevant portion

of the electoral roll relating to the petitioner was not enclosed along

with the nomination paper. The said decision was communicated to

the petitioner by Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ

petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that no

provision of law enjoins a candidate who is contesting in the ward in

which he is an elector, to produce a copy of the electoral roll along

with the nomination paper and therefore the rejection of the

petitioner’s nomination paper is arbitrary and illegal.

2. The Apex Court and this Court has consistently held in a

series of decisions that once the election process has commenced,

individual grievances cannot be redressed by way of writ petitions

and that the remedy of the candidate whose nomination has been

WPC No.30887/2010 2

illegally rejected is to challenge the election of the returned candidate

by way of an election petition. Further, as per the election schedule

notified by the State Election Commission, the list of valid

nominations was published yesterday. Sri. Murali Purushothaman,

learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission submits

that the work of printing ballot papers has also commenced. In such

circumstances, I am of the opinion that no relief could be granted to

the writ petitioner.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the election of the

returned candidate, if so advised, in other appropriate proceedings.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps

WPC No.30887/2010 3