High Court Kerala High Court

Vinodkumar vs C.P. Faizal on 26 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar vs C.P. Faizal on 26 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11494 of 2008(R)


1. VINODKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. C.P. FAIZAL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :26/11/2009

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            W.P.(C).No.11494 of 2008-R

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009.

                     JUDGMENT

“CR”

1.The petitioner is a voter in Ward No.14 of

Koduvally Grama Panchayat. A petition filed by

him before the Kerala State Election Commission

seeking an order that the first respondent is

disqualified stands allowed as per Ext.P1 order.

Today, vide separate judgment, that order has

been confirmed. Petitioner seeks a direction to

the Commission that in view of Ext.P1, the

Commission ought to have further declared that

the first respondent is disqualified and is not

qualified to be chosen in the Panchayat at any

level in view of Sections 29(f) and 34(1)(n) of

the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

2.Section 29(f) of the Act provides that a person

shall not be qualified for chosen to fill a seat

in a Panchayat at any level unless he has not

WPC11494/08 -: 2 :-

been disqualified under any other provisions of

the Act. The said provision gets automatically

attracted when a member is disqualified in terms

of Section 35(1) of the Act. The incurring of the

disqualification under Section 35(1)(q) is

automatic because, Section 35(1) opens by saying

that a member shall cease to hold office as such,

if he has failed to file declaration of his

assets within the time limit prescribed under

Section 159. Section 34(1)(n) states that a

person shall be disqualified for being chosen as

and for being a member of a Panchayat at any

level, if he is disqualified under any other

provision of the Act. Section 36(1) provides for

filing a petition before the State Election

Commission for decision on a question as to

whether a member has become disqualified under

Section 35 except clause (n) thereof. The

provision in sub-section 2 of Section 36

empowering the Commission to pass an interim

order as to whether a member may continue in

office or not till a decision is taken on the

WPC11494/08 -: 3 :-

petition filed under Section 36(1), abundantly

enforces the conclusion that the effect of

disqualification under Section 35(1)(q) is

automatic. This is why Section 35 or 36 does not,

in any manner, make the disqualification

conditional on any declaration or direction by

the Commission.

For the aforesaid reasons, the consideration of

Ext.P2 petition by the Commission is unnecessary

because, the law takes its course and the

statutory conclusions referable to Section 29(f)

and 34(1)(n) are automatic and run along with the

incurring of the disqualification under Section

35(1)(q). The first respondent would, therefore,

stand disqualified in terms of Sections 29(f) and

35(1)(n) also. It is so declared. The writ

petition is ordered accordingly.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/2511