IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33830 of 2009()
1. ADV.M.PHILIP KOSHY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PROF.SAJI CHACKO,S/O.K.K.CHACKO
... Respondent
2. MADHU PARUMALA, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER
3. A.K.SAJEEV, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :25/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the
records leading to Exhibit P5 order and set aside
Exhibit P5 order dated 6.11.2009 in O.P.(Election)
49/2005 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta allowing
the election petitioner/first respondent to make
necessary amendments in the election petition to
conform with law without even an amendment
application having been filed by the election
petitioner/first respondent.”
2. Petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(Ele).No.49 of
2008 on the file of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. He is the
returned candidate in No.2, Mallappalli Division of the
Pathanamthitta District Panchayath. In the election petition
preferred by the first respondent, his election is being impeached
on various grounds, with which at present no advertence is called
for to dispose the writ petition. Previously there was a writ
petition at the instance of the petitioner challenging the order
passed by the District Court permitting the first respondent
(petitioner in the election petition) to amend the petition.
W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 – O
2
Petitioner had filed another revision also challenging the finding
entered by the learned District Judge as to the maintainability of
the election petition. The writ petition and revision petition after
being heard together were disposed by Ext.P3 judgment.
Revision was dismissed, and writ petition disposed subject to the
observations made which inter alia reserved the right of the
petitioner to contest on merits all triable issues raised in the
petition. Pursuant thereto amendment had been carried out in
the election petition by the first respondent/petitioner in the
election petition, but, in carrying out such amendments,
corrections to be made in the verification column was made by
the counsel which under law required to be done only by the
petitioner in the election petition. That infirmity was later
permitted to be corrected by the court. That was objected to by
the petitioner pointing out the verification made out was also not
correct. However, the court below permitted the first respondent
in the election petition to rectify the infirmity with respect to the
corrections made by the counsel on the verification column.
Ext.P5 is the copy of the order passed by the court negativing the
objections raised by the petitioner to resist permission being
W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 – O
3
accorded to the first respondent (petitioner in the election
petition) from carrying out the corrections. Propriety and
correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard
to the submissions made by the counsel and taking note of the
facts and circumstances present, I find no notice to the
respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on
R.P.Moidutty v. P.T.Kunju Muhammed and Another (2000
(1) SCC 481) contended that the court below went wrong in
permitting the petitioner in the election petition, first respondent
in the writ petition, to rectify the serious infirmities which had
occurred in the verification column of the election petition and
also in the annexures produced with the petition. Some
amendments have also been permitted to be carried out by the
petitioner even without filing a separate petition for amendment
is the further grievance espoused by the learned counsel to assail
Ext.P5 order. Even in the decision relied by the learned counsel
W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 – O
4
it has been made clear the defect on verification is not fatal to
the petition, and it can be cured. So much so Ext.P5 order
passed by the court below permitting the petitioner in the
election petition to carry out the infirmities in the verification
column whether it had occurred by the previous corrections made
by his counsel or not, cannot be found fault with. It is also
noticed that a time limit had been fixed by this Court under
Ext.P3 judgment for trial and disposal of the election petition.
The term of office of the petitioner will expire within a short span
of ten months. Perusing Ext.P5 order also I find that no
interference with the order is called for by invoking the visitorial
jurisdiction vested with this Court. Whatever challenges available
to the petitioner with respect to the corrections made to the
verification column can be canvassed in the trial of the petition, if
so provided by law.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is
closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-