Shenna vs Kerala State Election Commission on 13 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31520 of 2010(L)


1. SHENNA, AGED 26 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

3. RETURNING OFFICER, G13,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SHANOJ

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      W.P.(C) No. 31520 of 2010-L
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging rejection of nomination of the

petitioner to Ward No.8 of Velom Grama Panchayat.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Council for the Election Commission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection is

arbitrary and illegal and therefore this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the

matter, even at the intermediate stage of the election process. It is pointed

out that there are no disputed questions of fact and no adjudication on those

aspects is necessary with regard to the points raised in the writ petition. It is

further pointed out that if there is a patent illegality, this Court can interfere

at the intermediate stage of the process.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted

that in the light of the express bar contained in Article 243-O of the

Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the validity of the action

taken by the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination. Reliance is also

placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Returning

Officer v. Chamiyar (2006 (2) KLT 878).

5. Article 243-O bars the interference by courts in election matters.

Sub article (b) thereof, provides that “no election to any Panchayat shall be

called in question except by an election petition presented to such

authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made

by the Legislature of a State.” In the light of the non-obstante clause

therein, evidently the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution will be barred. This legal position has been reiterated in a

number of decisions by the Apex Court and this Court. In Chamiyar’s case

(2006 (2) KLT 878), the very same question was considered and the only

remedy available to the petitioner is to file an election petition before the

Munsiff’s Court and not to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, at this

stage.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the remedy of

the petitioner to file an election petition in terms of the provisions of the

Panchayat Raj Act after the declaration of results of the election is over. No

costs.

                                    (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

wpc 31520/2010    3




kav/