IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31171 of 2010(V)
1. RATHNAKUMAR N.KUZHIVILATHOTTATHU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER & THE
3. THE RETURNING OFFICE TO THE ELECTION TO
4. THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER &
For Petitioner :SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31171 Of 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein had submitted two sets nominations
for contesting as a candidate for one of the Wards in
Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat. Her nominations were
accepted as valid. Out of the two sets of nomination papers, the
petitioner withdrew one set of nomination paper. It is pointed out
that, surprisingly, when the notice was issued, her candidature
itself was shown as wrong. It is in these circumstances, that she
has approached this Court, by filing this Writ Petition.
2. Respondents have filed detailed counter affidavit.
Mainly it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the
Election Commission that in the light of Article 243 O(b) of the
Constitution, this Court cannot entertain this Writ Petition and
accordingly, the remedy of the petitioner is only to file an election
petition. Reliance is placed on various decisions of the Apex
Court, namely N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952
SC 64) and other cases. So many aspects have been pointed out
to justify the action of the Returning Officer also. I am not going
W.P.(C)No. 31171/10 -2-
into the merits of the contention, even though the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that mala fides is writ large in the
proceedings as she was really a candidate eligible to contest the
election.
3. Evidently, in the light of the bar of Article 243 O(b) of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner can only move the
Munsiff’s Court, by filing an election petition after the election is
over. The jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is well settled
that this Court cannot interfere with any matter which may
tamper with the process of the election. This Court can only issue
a direction to smoothen the process of the election. Even though
the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade me to
direct inclusion of her name in the list of candidates, in the light of
the decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Standing
Counsel for the Election Commission, it may not be proper for this
Court to issue such directions. Therefore the Writ Petition is
dismissed, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to file an
election petition, after the election is over.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
dsn