{"id":20105,"date":"2008-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-06-26T18:44:08","modified_gmt":"2014-06-26T13:14:08","slug":"pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA.No. 39 of 2008()\n\n\n1. PANKJAKSHAN, AGD 36 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MURUGADAS, AGED 30 YEARS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :03\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & J.\n                       ------------------------\n                       M.F.A.No.39 of 2008\n                       ------------------------\n\n             Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The defeated candidate, in an election to the District<\/p>\n
Panchayat of Palakkad District from Vandithavalam Division, is<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the<\/p>\n
election petition which he filed as E.P. No.173\/2005 and hence<\/p>\n
this first appeal under Section 113 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The<\/p>\n
respondent, who was respondent before the Election Tribunal, is<\/p>\n
the successful candidate. Parties will be referred to as they were<\/p>\n
before the Election Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The election petition was filed under Sections 87, 88,<\/p>\n
89, 91, 92, 100, 102 and 103 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,<\/p>\n
1994 and the prayer in the petition was for recounting of the<\/p>\n
votes and for declaration of the petitioner as the returning<\/p>\n
candidate. The case of the petitioner, as averred in the petition,<\/p>\n
was that he contested in the election as official candidate of the<\/p>\n
Indian National Congress (I) with the symbol ‘Hand’.            The<\/p>\n
respondent contested the election as        an official candidate of<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Janatha Dal (S) with the symbol of that party. The counting of<\/p>\n
the votes was held for grama panchayat, block panchayat and<\/p>\n
District Panchayat at Chittur Government College on 27\/9\/2005.<\/p>\n
For the purpose of counting, the State Election Commission<\/p>\n
provided    25 result sheets.   In 12 Vandithavalam Division to<\/p>\n
which the petitioner contested, the total number of voters was<\/p>\n
69281.    Out of them 46,782 exercised their franchise.    At the<\/p>\n
counting, 1221 votes were declared as invalid votes. Out of this,<\/p>\n
certain votes   cast properly and without any ambiguity were<\/p>\n
also kept aside as invalid by the counting officers.  Whenever,<\/p>\n
objections were raised, it was declared that those votes will be<\/p>\n
again verified and counted for, if found valid.    However, even<\/p>\n
after completing the counting, those votes were not rechecked.<\/p>\n
As per the votes recorded by the counting agencies the petitioner<\/p>\n
secured 22810 votes while the respondent secured 22751 votes.<\/p>\n
But the returning officer declared the respondent as duly elected.<\/p>\n
It is contended that for the purpose of declaration of the result,<\/p>\n
number of votes secured by the respondent is taken as 22818<\/p>\n
as against 22743 by the petitioner.      Declaration was made at<\/p>\n
2.30 A.M. on 28\/9\/2005.       Noticing the apparent mistake, the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner   instantaneously gave a complaint to the Returning<\/p>\n
Officer, stating that there is apparent mistake in the addition and<\/p>\n
tabulation of votes apart from other illegalities and improprieties<\/p>\n
in the counting.    The Returning Officer rejected the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
request for recounting. On the same day itself the petitioner filed<\/p>\n
application before the District Collector and the Chief Election<\/p>\n
Commissioner, requesting for stoppage of declaration of result<\/p>\n
and   recounting of votes.     Thereafter, the petitioner preferred<\/p>\n
another application before the Election Commission stating the<\/p>\n
discrepancies in the counting and requesting for verification of<\/p>\n
the correctness of the election. It is highlighted that there is<\/p>\n
apparent mistake in the tabulation and addition of the votes<\/p>\n
secured by the petitioner        from booth No.2 Ward No.13,<\/p>\n
Pattikulam of Perumatty Grama Panchayat. From this booth, the<\/p>\n
petitioner secured 279 votes while the respondent secured 212<\/p>\n
votes.     While writing the votes as secured by the candidates,<\/p>\n
the votes secured by the petitioner has been included as the vote<\/p>\n
secured by the respondent relating to booth No.2 of Ward No.13<\/p>\n
of Pattikulam. So also the votes secured by the respondent from<\/p>\n
the said booth has been included as the votes secured by the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner.   Thus the difference of 67 votes arose. 67 votes<\/p>\n
were deducted from the account of the petitioner and added to<\/p>\n
the account of the respondent. Had it not been so, the petitioner<\/p>\n
would have secured 22810 as against 22751 by the respondent.<\/p>\n
This is clear from the pattern of votes secured by the other<\/p>\n
candidates in the Grama Panchayat and block Panchayat              of<\/p>\n
Booth No.2 of Ward No.13 of Perumatty Grama Panchayat.<\/p>\n
Hence the petitioner prayed for recounting of the votes       held in<\/p>\n
Booth No. 2 of Ward No.13 of Perumatty Grama Panchayat and<\/p>\n
for declaration that the petitioner is duly elected candidate to D9<\/p>\n
District Panchayat from 12 Vandithavalam Division in Palakkad<\/p>\n
District.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Serious counter was filed by the respondent contending<\/p>\n
that the petition does not maintainable and the the pleadings<\/p>\n
raised in the petition are without bona fides or truth. The<\/p>\n
petitioner’s claim that he secured 22810 as against 22751<\/p>\n
secured by the respondent is strongly denied.       It is stated that<\/p>\n
the petitioner claim that he preferred application before the<\/p>\n
District Collector and Chief Election Commissioner for stoppage of<\/p>\n
declaration of result is false. It is stated that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
contention that there was mistake in the tabulation and addition<\/p>\n
of votes secured by him from booth No. 2 in Ward No.13 of<\/p>\n
Pattikulam and Perumatty Grama Panchayat is wrong. Equally<\/p>\n
wrong is the claim that the petitioner secured      279   and the<\/p>\n
respondent secured      212 votes from the      said booth.    The<\/p>\n
petitioner’s contention that a mistake crept in while adding the<\/p>\n
votes in booth No.2 in Ward 13 of Perumatty Grama Panchayat<\/p>\n
was stoutly denied. It is then contended that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
not complied with the mandatory provisions of Kerala Panchayat<\/p>\n
Raj Act in filing the petition.  It is also contended that there is<\/p>\n
no case made out for declaring the petitioner as      the returned<\/p>\n
candidate and the petitioner has not made any objection in<\/p>\n
writing to the returning officer regarding the recounting of votes.<\/p>\n
Subsequently,      the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Chief Election Commissioner for recounting of the votes.       For<\/p>\n
that reason also, the present election            petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   At trial, witnesses PWs 1 to 6 were examined and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the petitioner and no<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent.       Further,<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.X1 to 7 were also marked. The learned Judge formulated<\/p>\n
the following points to be considered in the appeal;<\/p>\n
               1. Whether the recounting of polled in<\/p>\n
          booth No.2, Ward No.13 of Pattikilam of<\/p>\n
          Perumatty Grama Panchayat in the election to<\/p>\n
          D9 District Panchayat is necessary ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to<\/p>\n
          get an order for declaration of the election of<\/p>\n
          respondent to D9, District Panchayat from<\/p>\n
          Vandithavalam Division as invalid and illegal<\/p>\n
          and to set aside the same after recounting ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be<\/p>\n
          declared duly elected to D9, District Panchayat<\/p>\n
          from 12 Vandithavalam Division after re-<\/p>\n
          counting ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               4. What order as to costs ?<\/p>\n
     5. The learned District Judge considered the Points Nos. 1 to<\/p>\n
3 together. Even though several contentions were raised at the<\/p>\n
time of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner confined his<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute regarding the votes in Booth No.2 in Ward 13 of<\/p>\n
Perumatty     Grama Panchayat.      PW4 Returning Officer   gave<\/p>\n
evidence to the effect that     Ext.X3 is the result sheet of the<\/p>\n
candidates.    He stated that votes secured by the candidates<\/p>\n
belonging to the same political group contesting in election to<\/p>\n
Grama Panchayat, District Panchayat, Block Panchayat will vary.<\/p>\n
The learned District Judge found that this variation was natural<\/p>\n
and that the evidence of PW4 will not be of any assistance to the<\/p>\n
petitioner. PW 5 is the Returning Officer of Perumatty Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat election.     Ext.X4 is the result sheet signed by PW5<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid election relating to Perumatty Grama Panchayat<\/p>\n
from Ward No.13.     He does not have information regarding the<\/p>\n
political alliance  of the various candidates and combination<\/p>\n
between the various political parties    inter se.   The learned<\/p>\n
District Judge found that the votes secured by the candidates<\/p>\n
shown in Ext.X4 result sheet is not comparable with the election<\/p>\n
to which the petitioner and the respondent contested. PW-6 was<\/p>\n
the Returning Officer for the Block Panchayat election.   Exts.X5<\/p>\n
and X6 are the nomination forms of the two candidates, who<\/p>\n
contested to that election.    He also testified that even when<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                8<\/span><\/p>\n
candidates are contesting to Block Panchayat and Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat and District Panchayat with the support of the very<\/p>\n
same political group and the voters are casting their votes in the<\/p>\n
very same booth,     number of votes will always vary depending<\/p>\n
upon the personality cult, influence and other relevant factors.<\/p>\n
The learned Judge correctly found that the evidence of this<\/p>\n
witness will not be of any assistance to the petitioner.  Ext.X1<\/p>\n
was the result sheet of the election and the same was marked<\/p>\n
with the consent of the counsel. Ext.X1 was not relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned Judge for the reason that the same does not pertain to<\/p>\n
booth No.2 in Ward No.13 of Perumatty Panchayat, to which the<\/p>\n
petitioner confined his submissions at the time of argument.<\/p>\n
PW 3 is the assistant Returning Officer, who is the signatory to<\/p>\n
Exts.X1 and X2.      Exts.X1 and X2 do not relate to the votes<\/p>\n
secured by the petitioner or the respondent and hence they were<\/p>\n
found to be irrelevant to decide the issue. Ext-X2(e) to (f) are<\/p>\n
the result sheets relating to the votes secured by the petitioner<\/p>\n
and the respondent from Perumatty Panchayat.         PW-3 is the<\/p>\n
signatory to Exts.X2(e) to (f).  PW-3 testified that according to<\/p>\n
Ext.X2(f) the petitioner secured 212 votes and the respondent<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
secured 279 votes. It is testified further that the result sheets<\/p>\n
were given to the agents of the candidate for perusal and at that<\/p>\n
time the agents have not raised any objection regarding the<\/p>\n
entries in the result sheets. He stated that if any complaint or<\/p>\n
request for recounting had been made then and there, the same<\/p>\n
would have been acknowledged by him and he would have<\/p>\n
contacted the returning officer for taking further steps.       He<\/p>\n
stated further that the entries in Ext.X2 series were made by<\/p>\n
him after verification and it is thereafter he put the signature.<\/p>\n
The result sheet were also given to the Returning Officer.<\/p>\n
According     to  the    learned   District Judge,   despite  cross<\/p>\n
examination, the evidence of this witness corroborated that he<\/p>\n
had made all entries with due care and caution and that those<\/p>\n
entires were verified and given to the agents of the candidates<\/p>\n
for verification and it is only thereafter that he signed the same.<\/p>\n
The learned Judge noticed that this witness was summoned by<\/p>\n
the petitioner, however, was not sought to be declared hostile or<\/p>\n
cross examined by the petitioner.        The learned Judge did not<\/p>\n
become inclined to accept the       case of the petitioner that his<\/p>\n
counting agent and he promptly raised objection at the time of<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
counting    itself.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the complaint dated<\/p>\n
28\/9\/2005. Ext.A2 is copy of the petition filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the Election Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Though<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 is dated 1\/10\/2005, the same was seen verified and<\/p>\n
declared only on 25\/10\/2005 which was one month after the<\/p>\n
election.     Ext.A2, according to the learned Judge, affects<\/p>\n
genuineness of Ext.A1.      The learned Judge noticed that there<\/p>\n
was no evidence to show that Ext.A1 was sent by Registered Post<\/p>\n
or ordinary post or directly filed before the Election Commission.<\/p>\n
Ext.A3, being an unauthenticated Photostat copy of the result<\/p>\n
sheet, was rejected by the District Judge as unreliable document.<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 is a copy of the order passed by the Returning Officer,<\/p>\n
District Panchayat and District Collector, Palakkad.       It was<\/p>\n
noticed by the District Judge that the contention of the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the District Collector was that counting of votes was taken<\/p>\n
up simultaneously at District\/Block\/Grama Panchayat level and<\/p>\n
because of this counting agents were unable to put attention to<\/p>\n
the counting tables. The further contention raised before the<\/p>\n
District Collector was that some other votes held in favour of the<\/p>\n
UDF candidates were attached to the bundle of LDF candidates.<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                11<\/span><\/p>\n
The learned District Judge noticed that the order passed by the<\/p>\n
District Collector is a well reasoned order and it was correctly<\/p>\n
found by the District Collector that there was no evidence to<\/p>\n
substantiate the allegation of the petitioner that some of the<\/p>\n
UDF votes were attached to the bundles of the LDF votes.<\/p>\n
Variation in the stand taken by the petitioner before the court in<\/p>\n
the election petition and before the District Collector at the time<\/p>\n
of hearing was noted by the District Judge. It was noticed that<\/p>\n
the complaint raised in the election petition was not raised in<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 at the earliest point of time.    Ext.A5 is the intimation<\/p>\n
received from the State Election Commission to the petitioner<\/p>\n
stating that the dispute is    outside the purview of the State<\/p>\n
Election Commission.     The District Judge, however, highlights<\/p>\n
that copy of the complaint in respect of which Ext.P5 was<\/p>\n
received is not produced by the petitioner.       But, the learned<\/p>\n
District Judge would rightly discern from Ext.A5 itself that the<\/p>\n
complaint was regarding the counting of votes. It is confined to<\/p>\n
wrong entry in the result sheet relating to booth No. 2 of ward 13<\/p>\n
of Pattikulam. Thus, the District Judge held that the petitioner<\/p>\n
does not have a definite and consistent case.         The learned<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                12<\/span><\/p>\n
District Judge has analised the evidence given by PW-2, counting<\/p>\n
agent of the petitioner.   It is highlighted that specific question<\/p>\n
was put to PW-2 as to the dispute regarding the entries in the<\/p>\n
tabular form, he answered that he has not signed it.         PW-2<\/p>\n
admitted that entires in the tabulation form could be seen from<\/p>\n
the candidate as well as the agent and that they have got every<\/p>\n
right to verify the same.  It was also admitted that they did not<\/p>\n
make any request for verification of the same.      In the light of<\/p>\n
PW-2’s evidence, the learned District Judge observed that      the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s contention that mistake had crept in while preparing<\/p>\n
the result sheet is not correct. The learned District Judge has<\/p>\n
made analysis of the evidence adduced by the PW1, the<\/p>\n
petitioner. It was noticed that the petitioner had admitted that<\/p>\n
he has not filed any complaint to the Returning Officer at the<\/p>\n
counting station    at Chittur College    regarding the mistaken<\/p>\n
entries in the result sheet. PW-1’s version that the allegation is<\/p>\n
raised on the basis of a comparison of the entries noted by the<\/p>\n
counting agent and the entires prepared by himself was rejected<\/p>\n
by the District Judge as baseless and self serving.    It was seen<\/p>\n
that the petitioner could obtain details of the votes secured from<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
the District Collector only in the evening on 30.9.2005 and it is<\/p>\n
only thereafter that he will be able to know the alleged mistake.<\/p>\n
Absence of definite pleadings and evidence to that effect in the<\/p>\n
plea, the variation between the stand taken by the petitioner at<\/p>\n
different stages are all highlighted by the District Judge. The<\/p>\n
learned District Judge declined the request of the petitioner for<\/p>\n
invocation of Section 115(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act and<\/p>\n
ultimately dismissed the Election Petition directing the parties to<\/p>\n
suffer costs.\n<\/p>\n
      6. I have heard submissions of Sri. George Poonthottam,<\/p>\n
the learned Counsel for the petitioner,     when this first appeal<\/p>\n
came up for consideration. It was submitted by Sri.George<\/p>\n
Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the dispute<\/p>\n
falls within a very narrow campus and the same can be resolved<\/p>\n
by perusing the tabulation sheet in respect of Booth No.2 of Ward<\/p>\n
No.13 of      Perumatty Grama Panchayat.         Considering that<\/p>\n
submission, I passed the following orders on 2\/7\/2008.<\/p>\n
                 \"The    State    Election   Commission,\n\n            Thiruvanathapuram    is  directed  to   make\n\nM.F.A.No.39\/2008                14<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
           available the tabulation sheet in respect of<\/p>\n
           booth No.2 in Ward No. 13 of Perumatty<\/p>\n
           Grama Panchayat in respect of Division No.12<\/p>\n
           Vandithavalam (Palakkad District Panchayat).<\/p>\n
                Handover     a copy of this order to<\/p>\n
           Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Standing Counsel<\/p>\n
           for the Election Commission who will ensure<\/p>\n
           compliance of the above order.     Tabulation<\/p>\n
           sheet called for will be made available in a<\/p>\n
           sealed cover. Post on 18\/7\/2008.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7. The Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission<\/p>\n
Sri. Murali Purushothaman, pursuant to that order produced<\/p>\n
tabulation sheet in a sealed cover on 18\/7\/2008. I ordered<\/p>\n
that the same will be kept under safe custody as part of the<\/p>\n
records.   Thereafter, on 25\/7\/2008 , after hearing both sides<\/p>\n
and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel for the<\/p>\n
Election Commission I passed the following order;<\/p>\n
               “Mr.Murali    Purushothaman,        the<\/p>\n
          learned Standing Counsel for the Election<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                15<\/span><\/p>\n
         Common is directed to file a statement<\/p>\n
         regarding the actual number of votes polled<\/p>\n
         by the appellant and the respondent in<\/p>\n
         booth No.2 of Ward No.13 of perumatty<\/p>\n
         Panchayat, i.e. the election in dispute. This<\/p>\n
         will be done after verifying the ballot<\/p>\n
         papers.   In order to enable the Standing<\/p>\n
         Counsel to file the statement as directed<\/p>\n
         above, the District election Officer will<\/p>\n
         collect the ballot papers from the concerned<\/p>\n
         treasury. Post on 13\/8\/2008.<\/p>\n
\n\n               Handover a copy of this order to the\n\n         Standing     Counsel    for   the    Election\n\n         Commission.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     8.    Thereafter, I.A. No.1982\/2008 was filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent seeking recall of the order dated 25\/7\/2008 and<\/p>\n
considering that I.A. I dispose of the I.A. issuing the following<\/p>\n
order ‘;\n<\/p>\n
              “Heard       Sri.M.K.Damodaran       and<\/p>\n
         Sri.George Poonthottam the learned counsel<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                16<\/span><\/p>\n
         for the appellant.     Having regard to the<\/p>\n
         submissions addressed, this I.A. is disposed<\/p>\n
         of in the following terms;\n<\/p>\n
               The order dated 25\/7\/2008 will be kept<\/p>\n
         in abeyance till such time as the MFA is<\/p>\n
         finally disposed of.    Post on 11\/8\/2008 at<\/p>\n
         1.45″.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9. Very extensive submissions were addressed before by<\/p>\n
Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the appellant, who<\/p>\n
drew my attention to Annexure A1, A2, , A5, Ext.X7, X2(f) and<\/p>\n
to the oral evidence adduced in the case particularly evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs2 and PW1. Sri.M.K.Damodaran, learned Senior counsel for<\/p>\n
the   respondent     would    meet   all   the submissions     of<\/p>\n
Sri.Poonthottam. My attention was drawn by Sri.Damodaran to<\/p>\n
Rules 48,49,51 and 54 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of<\/p>\n
Election Rules) and to the statutory Forms 24,24(a) and 25.<\/p>\n
Sri.Damodaran also draw my attention to certain portions of the<\/p>\n
evidence in the case.           Strong reliance was placed by<\/p>\n
Sri.M.K.Damodaran on the judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                17<\/span><\/p>\n
Ram Sewak Yadav. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others ( AIR<\/p>\n
1964 Supreme Court 1249), Tanaji Ramachandra Nimhan v.<\/p>\n
Swati Vinayak Nimhan & Ors.<\/a>( AIR 2006 S.C.1218), Judgment of<\/p>\n
Sri.Padmanabhan J in Balaram v. Aravindakshan (1988 (1)<\/p>\n
KLT 615), judgment of a Division Bench of Court in Dominic v.<\/p>\n
Gopalakrishnan (1993 (2) KLT 88) to the Judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in       P.K.K.Shamsudeen       v.K.A.M.Mappillai<\/p>\n
Mohindeen and others (AIR 1989 Supreme Court 640). To the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court in        M.R.Gopalakrishnan v.<\/p>\n
Thachady Prabhakaran and Others<\/a> (1995 Supp(2) Supreme<\/p>\n
Court Cases 101) and also to the judgment of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind<\/a> ( AIR 1975 SC 2117).\n<\/p>\n
      10. Sri.George Poothottam, in reply would rely on the<\/p>\n
observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 67 and 8 of<\/p>\n
the   judgment reported in 1964 Supreme Court 1249(supra).<\/p>\n
The entire lower court records are available and I have scanned<\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Having considered the rival submissions addressed before<\/p>\n
me by      Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the learned Senior counsel Sri.Damodaran in the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
light of the evidence available in the case and the ratio emerging<\/p>\n
from the various decisions cited before me by Sri.Damadaran<\/p>\n
which throw light on the aspects to be kept in mind by Election<\/p>\n
Tribunal while trying election petitions and while considering<\/p>\n
requests for recounting, I am of the view that there is no warrant<\/p>\n
for interfering with the Judgment of the Election Tribunal. As<\/p>\n
rightly noticed by the      learned District Judge, the appellant<\/p>\n
petitioner did not have a consistent case and at any rate the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced in this case falls short of holding that mistake<\/p>\n
as alleged by him crept into the tabulation sheet while recording<\/p>\n
the votes secured by the petitioner and the respondent in Booth<\/p>\n
No. 2. Recounting     is to be allowed only when the same is<\/p>\n
absolutely necessary and warranted by the evidence oral,<\/p>\n
documentary and circumstantial. The evidence in this case will<\/p>\n
not justify the recounting asked for and I do not find any reason<\/p>\n
not to accept the submission of Sri.Murali Purushothaman,<\/p>\n
learned Standing counsel for the Election Commission       on the<\/p>\n
basis of the instructions from the custodian of the ballot papers<\/p>\n
that even if recount is ordered no useful purpose will be served<\/p>\n
from the point of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.39\/2008                19<\/span><\/p>\n
     The result is that the M.F.A will stand dismissed, but in the<\/p>\n
circumstances, without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                  PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE<\/p>\n
dpk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA.No. 39 of 2008() 1. PANKJAKSHAN, AGD 36 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. MURUGADAS, AGED 30 YEARS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Dated :03\/09\/2008 O R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3366,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008"},"wordCount":3366,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008","name":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-26T13:14:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankjakshan-vs-murugadas-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pankjakshan vs Murugadas on 3 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}