High Court Kerala High Court

Alima Usman vs P.K.Shareef on 11 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Alima Usman vs P.K.Shareef on 11 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5430 of 2010(O)


1. ALIMA USMAN, W/O.USMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.K.SHAREEF,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.K.RAJEESH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :11/03/2010

 O R D E R

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

————————————-
WP(C) No.5430 of 2010-O

————————————-
Dated 11th March 2010

Judgment

In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P3 order, by

which the Court below directed that the ballot box shall be

opened and the ballot papers be verified before the Presiding

Officer, in the presence of the counsel on both sides.

2. The petitioner is the respondent in Election OP

No.22/05 before the Munsiff’s Court, Chavakkad. The

petitioner and the respondents contested the Panchayat

election held to Ward No.1 of Mullassery Grama Panchayat.

When the results of the election were announced, the petitioner

got 312 votes, the first respondent got 311 votes and the

second respondent got 192 votes. There were 11 invalid votes

and also another invalid vote since there was no signature of

the Presiding Officer on the ballot paper. Finally, the petitioner

was declared as elected.

WPC 5430/10 2

3. The complaint of the first respondent herein in the

election petition was that the ballot paper which was declared

as invalid due to absence of signature of the Presiding Officer

on it, was a vote in his favour. When the Election Petition filed

by the first respondent came up for evidence, he filed IA

No.424/10 before the Court below, seeking for inspection of the

ballot papers in Court. The said IA is produced as Ext.P1 in this

Petition. The petitioner herein filed detailed objections to

Ext.P1, which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner alleges

that without considering his objections, the Court below passed

Ext.P3 order, allowing Ext.P1 IA filed by the respondent herein.

The said order is assailed in this Petition.

4. On the very face of Ext.P3, it is unsustainable in

law. It is well settled that the opening of the ballot box is very

seldom done and only under exceptional circumstances. A

prima facie case will have to be established for scrutinising the

ballot papers, which has not been done in the present case.

Therefore, the order is only to be set aside. Accordingly, this

Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order is set aside. The Court

below is directed to dispose of the Election OP as expeditiously

WPC 5430/10 3

as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Judgment.





                                  P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE



sta

WPC 5430/10    4