Kizhakiniyakath Liyakkathali … vs P.V.Kunhimarakkar on 3 January, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 340 of 2007(M)


1. KIZHAKINIYAKATH LIYAKKATHALI NAHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.V.KUNHIMARAKKAR, S/O. KUNHAVARANKUTTY
                       ...       Respondent

2. UPPATTU JAFAR SADDIQUE, S/O. ABDUL

3. MUHAMMED FIROZ, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN,

4. THARAYIL SIVADASAN, S/O. KUTTAN,

5. CHERKKOT HAMZA, S/O. MUHAMMED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISH R. MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/01/2007

 O R D E R
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

       ...........................................

                     W.P.(C)No.340 OF 2007

      ............................................

          DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the unsuccessful candidate in the

election conducted for Ward No.13 of Parappanangadi

Panchayat. He filed O.P.42 of 2005 challenging the

election of first respondent. It is contended by the

petitioner in the election petition that several

persons committed double voting and therefore the

election is vitiated. Election is challenged on that

ground. Petitioner filed I.A.395 of 2006 to call for

certain documents. It was dismissed under Ext.P4 order.

Ext.P4 order is challenged in this petition filed under

Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

was heard. Ext.P4 order was passed in Ext.P2

application. Under Ext.P3 order learned Munsiff held

that petitioner has summoned the entire counter foils

of the ballot paper and it is not practicable to call

for all the documents. In such circumstances, the

petition was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

WP(C)340/2007 2

submits that at least material documents with regard to

the alleged double voting should have been called for

by the learned Munsiff. But on going through Ext.P2

order it is not possible to make out what are the

relevant and necessary documents to be called for. In

such circumstances I find no infirmity in Ext.P4 order.

Petitioner is at liberty to file a proper application

before the learned Munsiff to call for necessary and

relevant documents stating the relevancy and the need.

If such an application is filed, learned Munsiff has to

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-