{"id":93402,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-17T02:23:59","modified_gmt":"2018-06-16T20:53:59","slug":"suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 118 of 2010()\n\n\n1. SURESH.P @ SATHYAMANGALAM SURESH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SURESHKUMAR.G.S.@ KOLLAYIL SURESH,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SULFIKAR, AGED 37 YEARS,\n\n3. ABUDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 77 YEARS,\n\n4. RETURNING OFFICER,\n\n5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.RAJA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :08\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n                   ----------------------------------------\n                         C.R.P.No.118 of 2010\n                    ---------------------------------------\n                 Dated this 08th day of April, 2010\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of learned<\/p>\n
District Judge, Kollam in A.S. (Election) 306 of 2008 confirming the<\/p>\n
order passed by the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara in O.P. (Election) 2<\/p>\n
of 2005 whereby election of revision petitioner from Sathyamangalam<\/p>\n
ward (ward No.10) of Chithara Grama panchayath held on 24-05-2005<\/p>\n
was set aside and respondent No.1 was declared as duly elected.<\/p>\n
Though various grounds are set forth in the election petition while<\/p>\n
challenging the election of petitioner          what is now relevant for<\/p>\n
decision in this petition is only regarding the allegation of double<\/p>\n
voting by certain voters and which according to respondent No.1<\/p>\n
materially affected result of the election. Learned Munsiff initially<\/p>\n
allowed the petition which was challenged by the petitioner in A.S.<\/p>\n
(Election) No.205 of 2006. Learned District Judge found that there<\/p>\n
was no proper consideration of the evidence, set aside the order of<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff and remanded the case for fresh decision.          That<\/p>\n
remand order was challenged by respondent No.1 in this court in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.606 of 2007. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the<\/p>\n
revision petition directed learned Munsiff to consider whether there<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
is double voting in the light of directions issued in the order and<\/p>\n
dispose of the election petition. After remand, I am told, no further<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced by the parties. Learned Munsiff reconsidered<\/p>\n
the issue in the light of the observations or directions in the remand<\/p>\n
judgment and the order of this court in C.R.P.No.606 of 2007, held<\/p>\n
that (apart from the 14 votes already invalidated by the Returning<\/p>\n
Officer at the time of counting) 23 votes are invalid on account of<\/p>\n
double voting, counted the remaining valid votes (after excluding<\/p>\n
those 23 votes) and found that respondent No.1 has secured more<\/p>\n
votes than petitioner (returned candidate). On that finding, election<\/p>\n
of petitioner was set aside and respondent No.1 was declared as duly<\/p>\n
elected from Sathyamangalam ward (ward No.10) of Chithara Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayath. Petitioner challenged that order before learned District<\/p>\n
Judge but, in vain. Hence this revision petition. It is contended by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for petitioner that evidence of relevant witnesses are<\/p>\n
misread by the courts below, even factual mistake have entered into<\/p>\n
the order\/judgment under challenge, the 23 invalid votes were not<\/p>\n
separately verified by the Courts below to ascertain in whose favour<\/p>\n
those votes were cast and that at any rate, there is no finding that the<\/p>\n
double voting has     materially affected  election of petitioner, the<\/p>\n
returned candidate.    Learned counsel has placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in I. Vikheshe Sema Vs. Hokishe<\/p>\n
Sema (1996(4) SCC 53) and of this court in Abdulla Haji Vs.<\/p>\n
Mohammed (2008(4) ILR Kerala 149). Learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
for respondent No.1 contend that there is sufficient evidence on<\/p>\n
record to show that there is double voting, 23 in number as found by<\/p>\n
the learned Munsiff and as confirmed by the appellate court and that<\/p>\n
since those 23 votes were eliminated from counting and the rest of<\/p>\n
the valid votes were counted even if the 23 invalid votes were not<\/p>\n
separately verified as claimed by the petitioner it is possible to find<\/p>\n
the number of invalid votes which went favour of petitioner, and<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 and       hold that     double voting has     materially<\/p>\n
affected election of petitioner.   Learned Senior Advocate points out<\/p>\n
that the decision of this court in Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed<\/p>\n
(supra) has no application to the facts of this case.<\/p>\n
       2.    I shall first refer to the question whether failure to<\/p>\n
ascertain in whose favour the 23 invalid votes were cast has affected<\/p>\n
the decision of the courts below. It is not disputed that at the time of<\/p>\n
counting (on the counting table) the Returning Officer had invalidated<\/p>\n
14 votes and the same were excluded from counting.           The votes<\/p>\n
secured by the candidates (excluding those 14 invalid votes) are as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                               -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Booth No.1:\n<\/p>\n
       Petitioner           -     329\n\n       Respondent No.1      -     387<\/span>\n\n       Respondent No.2      -     45<\/span>\n\n       Respondent No.3      -     5<\/span>\n\nBooth No.2:\n\n       Petitioner           -     255\n\n       Respondent No.1      -     206<\/span>\n\n       Respondent No.2      -     22<\/span>\n\n       Respondent No.3      -     1<\/span>\n\n Postal ballots:\n\n       Petitioner           -     3\n\n       Respondent No.1      -     8<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
 Total number of votes secured by the candidates:<\/p>\n
       Petitioner           –     607<\/p>\n
       Respondent No.1      –     604<\/span><\/p>\n
       Respondent No.2      –     67<\/span><\/p>\n
       Respondent No.3      –     6<\/span><\/p>\n
There is no challenge to the above votes secured by the candidates.<\/p>\n
The Returning Officer declared petitioner as elected from the ward.<\/p>\n
       3.    Learned Munsiff has invalidated 23 votes on account of<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
double voting (the question whether that invalidation is correct or not<\/p>\n
will be adverted to a bit later). Of the said 23 votes, two votes were<\/p>\n
declared invalid by the learned Munsiff on the recrimination petition<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner. Now I proceed on the basis that learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff has correctly invalidated those 23 votes.       Learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
has excluded those 23 votes and counted the remaining valid votes<\/p>\n
(i.e., also excluding the 14 votes which were already invalidated by<\/p>\n
the Returning Officer      and excluded from counting) and thereon<\/p>\n
following are the votes secured by the candidates.<\/p>\n
       Petitioner              -    587 (607 -20)\n\n       Respondent No.1         -    601 (604-3)\n\n       Respondent No.2         -    67<\/span>\n\n       Respondent No.3         -    6<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
Even after the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff were kept<\/p>\n
out of counting, there was no difference in the votes secured by<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 and 3 which meant that out of the 23 votes<\/p>\n
invalidated by the learned Munsiff, no vote had gone in favour of<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 and 3, for, their tally remained the same as before.<\/p>\n
       4.    But so far as Petitioner is concerned, his votes came down<\/p>\n
to 587 from 607 while votes secured by respondent No.1 came down<\/p>\n
to 601 from 604.      Therefore, it is clear that out of the 23 votes<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
invalidated by the learned Munsiff, 20 had gone            in favour of<\/p>\n
petitioner and 3 had gone in favour of respondent No.1. That is, less<\/p>\n
the 20 invalid votes from out of the total votes of 607 originally<\/p>\n
secured by petitioner, he got only 587 votes and less the 3 invalid<\/p>\n
votes secured by respondent No.1 from out of the 604 votes, he<\/p>\n
secured 601 votes. Therefore, even though the 23 votes invalidated by<\/p>\n
the learned Munsiff are not separately verified to ascertain to whom<\/p>\n
it was cast, there is no difficulty in finding out by the above exercise<\/p>\n
that of the 23 invalid votes, 20 had gone in favour of petitioner (the<\/p>\n
returned candidate) and 3 had gone in favour of respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
       5.    Now, I shall refer to the decisions relied on by learned<\/p>\n
Counsel. The Supreme Court in I. Vikheshe Sema Vs. Hokishe<\/p>\n
Sema (supra) at page 59 stated that it is necessary to ascertain the<\/p>\n
number of void votes which has been polled in favour of the<\/p>\n
respective candidates to ascertain whether the void votes have in<\/p>\n
anyway materially affected the result of the election. This court in<\/p>\n
Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed (supra) stated in paragraph 9 that<\/p>\n
when election is challenged on the ground of double voting it is<\/p>\n
necessary to count the invalid votes on account of such double voting<\/p>\n
to find whether it has in anyway materially affected result of the<\/p>\n
election. Learned Judge has illustrated the situation. That was a case<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
where the returned candidate secured 568 votes and the respondent<\/p>\n
who challenged the election secured 562 votes, the margin being only<\/p>\n
6 votes. 53 votes were found invalid at the time of counting. The<\/p>\n
Election Tribunal invalidated 10 votes. Of the 10 invalidated votes<\/p>\n
only 5 could be traced. The other 5 could not be located. In such a<\/p>\n
situation, there could be no inference that either the 10 or the located<\/p>\n
5 invalidated votes were cast in favour of the returned candidate and<\/p>\n
his election was materially affected by the double voting. It is in that<\/p>\n
situation the learned Single Judge held that counting of the invalid<\/p>\n
votes was essential and in the absence of that, order of Election<\/p>\n
Tribunal was set aside. Here, all the invalidated votes (23 in number)<\/p>\n
have been located and kept aside,       other valid votes have been<\/p>\n
counted and the result was as I have shown above. Therefore the<\/p>\n
contention that because it is not ascertained by physically verifying<\/p>\n
the 23 invalid votes to whom it went the decision of the Tribunal as<\/p>\n
confirmed by the appellate Court is vitiated, cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
What is required under Section 102 of the Panchayat Raj Act is that<\/p>\n
the invalid votes must have materially affected the result of the<\/p>\n
election which is proved on the basis of the manner of counting<\/p>\n
adopted by the Tribunal and which I have stated above.<\/p>\n
       6.    Then the next question is whether finding of the courts<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
below that 23 votes were invalid on account of double voting is<\/p>\n
justified on the evidence on record (There is no dispute regarding<\/p>\n
the two votes (out of those 23) invalidated on the recrimination<\/p>\n
petition filed by the petitioner). So far as allegation of double voting<\/p>\n
by Pws.5, 7, 8, 11, 15 to 21, 23, 25 and 28 is concerned, there is<\/p>\n
sufficient evidence on record to show that there was double voting.<\/p>\n
The oral evidence and the documents show that they have voted in 2<\/p>\n
booths of Chithara Grama panchayath. Trial court has referred to<\/p>\n
the evidence of these witnesses and the relevant counter foils of the<\/p>\n
ballot papers signed by these witnesses in both the wards and found<\/p>\n
after comparison of the signatures that these witnesses have engaged<\/p>\n
in double voting. Thus there is clear evidence of double voting by<\/p>\n
those witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    Then the allegation regarding double voting is by PWs.6,<\/p>\n
9, 13, 14, 22, 24 and 27. So far as PW.6 is concerned he admitted his<\/p>\n
identity in the voters list in ward No.10 (booth No.2 of<\/p>\n
Sathyamanagalam ward) and ward No.12 (booth No.2) of Chithara.<\/p>\n
He admitted that he is a voter in both the booths but denied double<\/p>\n
voting. Ext.X25(i) is the counter foil of ballot paper of booth No.2,<\/p>\n
ward No.10 (Sathyamangalam). Ext.X8(a) is Do- in relation to ward<\/p>\n
No.12, booth No.2 of Chithara.       The witness stated that his wife<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                 -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
signed on the counter foil of his ballot paper (Ext.X25(i)) since his<\/p>\n
right thumb was injured and denied his signature in Ext.X8(a). Trial<\/p>\n
court in paragraph 23 of the judgment observed that on a comparison<\/p>\n
of Ext.X8(a) with the signature in his deposition and summons the<\/p>\n
admitted signature tallied with the disputed signature in Ext.X8(a)<\/p>\n
and accordingly, he was found to have engaged in double voting.<\/p>\n
Learned Munsiff however wrongly stated that the witness had<\/p>\n
admitted that his wife had signed Ext.X8(a) and proceeded on that<\/p>\n
basis. That certainly is wrong since PW6 has not admitted signature<\/p>\n
in Ext.X8(a) either by himself or by his wife on his behalf. Even if that<\/p>\n
wrong statement is excluded there is the finding of learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
that on comparison of the admitted signature of PW6 with the<\/p>\n
disputed signature in Ext.X8(a) and          Ext.X25(a), the signatures<\/p>\n
tallied.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The next is PW9. The alleged double voting is attempted<\/p>\n
to be proved by Ext.X25(p) and X22(b). The counter foils allegedly<\/p>\n
signed by the witness are concerning ward No.10 (booth No.2,<\/p>\n
Sathyamanagalam) and ward No.8 (booth No.2, Chithara). PW9 has<\/p>\n
admitted his identity in the voters list in both the booths.         She<\/p>\n
admitted that she signed Ext.X25(p) but denied the          signature in<\/p>\n
Ext.X22(b). She also denied double voting. Trial court in paragraph<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
36 of its order stated that so far as Ext.X25(p) is concerned, the<\/p>\n
witness had initially denied her signature.        That observation of<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff is wrong since there is no initial denial of signature in<\/p>\n
Ext.X25(p). PW9 admitted that. She denied the signature in Ext.X22<\/p>\n
(b). Learned Munsiff compared the disputed signature in Ext.X25(p)<\/p>\n
and Ext.X22(b) with the admitted signature in summons and<\/p>\n
deposition and stated that it is clear that denial of signature is not<\/p>\n
genuine and that she has voted in two booths.          Here also, even<\/p>\n
excluding the wrong statement that the witness initially denied<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.X25(p), learned Munsiff has entered a finding on<\/p>\n
comparison of the disputed signature in Ext.X22(b) with her admitted<\/p>\n
signature and held that the disputed signature was subscribed by<\/p>\n
PW9 and thus there was double voting.\n<\/p>\n
       9.    PW13 is another witness who is said to have engaged in<\/p>\n
double voting. Documents attempted to be proved are Ext.X25(m)<\/p>\n
and Ext.X6(g) being the counter foils of the ballot papers allegedly<\/p>\n
issued    to     the witness  from      ward   No.10     (booth    No.2,<\/p>\n
Sathyamanagalam)      and  ward    No.12    (booth   No.1,     Chithara),<\/p>\n
respectively. The signature in Ext.X25(m) is denied though she stated<\/p>\n
that the said signature appears to be resembling her signature. But<\/p>\n
she denied the signature in Ext.X6(g). Learned Munsiff stated that<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                               -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the witness admitted her     signature in Ext.X6(g) but denied the<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.X25(m) while it is vice versa. So far as PW13 is<\/p>\n
concerned, I find that learned Munsiff has not ventured for a<\/p>\n
comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature<\/p>\n
and hence learned Munsiff was not right in holding that PW13 has<\/p>\n
engaged in double voting.\n<\/p>\n
       10.   Next is PW14. The relevant documents are Ext.X25(a)<\/p>\n
and Ext.X6(a), counter foils relating to the ballot papers allegedly<\/p>\n
issued to the witness in ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam)<\/p>\n
and ward No.12 (booth No.1, Chithara.) The witness has denied the<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.X25(a) though he stated that it looked like his<\/p>\n
signature but, he admitted his signature in Ext.X6(a).   He has also<\/p>\n
denied his identity in the voters list in ward No.10 of booth No.2.<\/p>\n
Trial court observed that since PW14 admitted exercise of his<\/p>\n
franchise in Sathyamangalam ward (Ext.X25(a)) it is not necessary to<\/p>\n
venture for a comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures.<\/p>\n
This finding of learned Munsiff is certainly not correct since the<\/p>\n
witness denied the signature in Ext.X25(a) and hence a comparison<\/p>\n
was required. Since no comparison has been made, finding of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff that PW14 has engaged in double voting cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
       11.   Now it is PW22. Ext.X25(r) and X12(b) are the documents<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
sought to be proved against him, being counter foils of ballot papers<\/p>\n
in two wards. The witness denied the signature in Ext.X12(b) and so<\/p>\n
far as signature in Ext.X25(r) is concerned, he stated that the<\/p>\n
signature appears to be like his. He admitted his identity in the<\/p>\n
voters list in both the wards and stated that he voted in booth No.2 of<\/p>\n
ward No.10 (Sathyamangalam). Trial court in paragraph 40 of the<\/p>\n
order observed that PW22 has admitted that he is serial No.164 in<\/p>\n
Ext.X3. Learned counsel points out that it is not revealed that the<\/p>\n
voters list was shown to the witness. Assuming so, learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
has compared the disputed signature in Ext.X12(b) and X25(r) with<\/p>\n
the admitted signature in the summons and deposition and stated that<\/p>\n
admitted and disputed signatures are such that the it cannot be<\/p>\n
imitated and that disputed signature in Ext.X25(r) and Ext.X12(b) are<\/p>\n
that of PW22.\n<\/p>\n
       12.   Next is PW24. He has denied his identity in the voters list<\/p>\n
in ward No.10 (booth No.1, Sathyamangalam) but he admitted that he<\/p>\n
exercised vote in that booth though he denied the signature in Ext.X2<\/p>\n
(d) relating to that booth. He admitted his signature in Ext.X22(d)<\/p>\n
regarding ward No.8 (booth No.2), Chithara. Though he denied the<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.X2(d), since the witness admitted that he exercised<\/p>\n
his vote in ward No.10 (booth No.1, Sathyamangalam) and admitted<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                    -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
his signature in Ext.X22(d) relating to ward No.8 (booth No.2), there<\/p>\n
is little difficulty in holding that he has voted twice.<\/p>\n
        13.    What remained is alleged double voting by          PW27.<\/p>\n
Ext.X25(s) and Ext.X8(f) are the documents pressed into service.<\/p>\n
They are the counter foils of ballot papers allegedly issued to the<\/p>\n
witness from ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam) and ward<\/p>\n
No.12 (booth No.2) of Chithara. The witness admitted that he voted<\/p>\n
in ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam).             He admitted his<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.X25(s) but so far as the signature in Ext.X8(f) relating<\/p>\n
to ward No.12 (booth No.2) is concerned he has denied that. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff stated that PW27 admitted his signature in Ext.X8(f) but<\/p>\n
denied his signature in Ext.X25(s). This is actually a mistake of fact as<\/p>\n
it is vice versa. But, that does not in anyway affect the conclusion<\/p>\n
arrived at by the learned Munsiff since learned Munsiff has compared<\/p>\n
the disputed signature in Ext.X8(f) with the admitted signature in<\/p>\n
summons and deposition.          First appellate court however has not<\/p>\n
referred to the evidence of PW27 and the alleged double voting by<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n
        14.    It is mainly based on comparison of the signatures made<\/p>\n
by learned Munsiff that the issue regarding double voting is<\/p>\n
answered.       Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the court to<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                   -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature though,<\/p>\n
decisions on the point say that such comparison shall not by itself be<\/p>\n
the sole basis for a decision. So far as election law is concerned, the<\/p>\n
rigour of section 73 has been diluted to some extent for the reason<\/p>\n
that it involved public interest and the process of getting the disputed<\/p>\n
signatures examined by the experts might consume time                 which<\/p>\n
by itself may defeat the very purpose of election law.          Courts have<\/p>\n
held that it is within the power of Election Tribunal to compare<\/p>\n
the disputed signature with the admitted signature and arrive at<\/p>\n
proper conclusions. The Supreme Court              in Neelalohithadasan<\/p>\n
Nadar Vs. George Mascrene (1994(1) KLT 887) has stated these<\/p>\n
aspects in paragraph 15. It is stated,<\/p>\n
                “The High Court finally recorded its satisfaction or<\/p>\n
         otherwise in the case of signature resulting in double voting<\/p>\n
         and impersonation, and signature and thumb impression not<\/p>\n
         tallying at all. No meaningful argument on facts in regard<\/p>\n
         thereto was addressed before us except to the approach of<\/p>\n
         employing S.73 of the Evidence Act. It was urged that the<\/p>\n
         High Court should not have become an expert.             We,<\/p>\n
         however, are of the view that when larger public interest is<\/p>\n
         served by expeditious disposal of an Election Petition, then<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                   -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
         the course adopted by the High Court, as suggested from<\/p>\n
         the afore-extraction, is in conformity therewith. Although<\/p>\n
         courts should be slow in resorting to this method, we do not<\/p>\n
         find it faulted, more so when the Courts resort to exercise of<\/p>\n
         such power is approved in two other cases of this court in<\/p>\n
         State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram (1979 (1)<\/p>\n
         SCR 931) and Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/p>\n
         (1980(2) SCR 249). As a sequator the finding recorded<\/p>\n
         by the High Court on Issue No,.1 is perfectly sound.”<\/p>\n
Thus, comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted<\/p>\n
signatures is permissible and that is what the learned Munsiff has<\/p>\n
done.\n<\/p>\n
           15.      So far as evaluation of the evidence by the learned<\/p>\n
District Judge is concerned I am constrained to say that evidence was<\/p>\n
not considered at depth as is expected of a Court of appeal which is<\/p>\n
the last fact finding court. Even factual mistakes committed by the<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff went unnoticed by the learned District Judge. But<\/p>\n
that is not fatal as, I stated that the factual mistake has not affected<\/p>\n
the conclusion reached by the learned Munsiff and the learned<\/p>\n
District Judge also concurred with the decision of the learned Munsiff.<\/p>\n
           16.      I do not find anything illegal in the learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                 -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
comparing the admitted and disputed signatures and arriving at<\/p>\n
conclusions. But, so far as witness Nos.13 and 14 are concerned, I<\/p>\n
stated that there was no comparison at all and hence learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
was not justified in holding that PWs.13 and 14 engaged in double<\/p>\n
voting.\n<\/p>\n
           17.      Now the question is whether double voting has<\/p>\n
materially affected    result of the election.     Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
petitioner would contend that neither of the courts below have<\/p>\n
referred to the question whether the double voting has “materially<\/p>\n
affected” the result of the election. May be, those words are not<\/p>\n
literally used. What is required is not the literal use of the expression<\/p>\n
but, to find whether the invalid votes have in any way materially<\/p>\n
affected the result of the election. Courts below have found in favour<\/p>\n
of that and accordingly set aside the election of revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and declared respondent No.1 as duly elected. But of the 23 votes<\/p>\n
invalidated by the learned Munsiff, invalidation of votes of Pws.13 and<\/p>\n
14 cannot stand which meant that invalidation made by the learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff can be only in respect of 21 votes (out of the 23 votes<\/p>\n
invalidated by the learned Munsiff). Even if those two votes are also<\/p>\n
added to the votes secured by the petitioner, it would only take his<\/p>\n
tally to 589 while respondent No.1 gets 601 votes. Even if the votes<\/p>\n
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
\n                                  -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
of Pws.6,9,13,14,22,24 and 27 (7 votes) invalidated by the learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff are also added to the votes secured by petitioner, his tally<\/p>\n
would only be 594 votes (587 +7) while respondent No.1 continues to<\/p>\n
have 601 votes. Thus even if the votes of Pws.6,9,13,14,22,24 and 27<\/p>\n
are added to the votes secured by petitioner, his election cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained and respondent No.1 who still secured more votes than<\/p>\n
petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 has to be declared as elected.<\/p>\n
Thus the double voting has materially affected the result of election in<\/p>\n
favour of Petitioner as rightly found by the Courts below. I do not<\/p>\n
find reason to interfere with the decision of the first appellate court<\/p>\n
confirming the order of the Election Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
           Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 118 of 2010() 1. SURESH.P @ SATHYAMANGALAM SURESH, … Petitioner Vs 1. SURESHKUMAR.G.S.@ KOLLAYIL SURESH, … Respondent 2. SULFIKAR, AGED 37 YEARS, 3. ABUDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 77 YEARS, 4. RETURNING OFFICER, […]<\/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-93402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - 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\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-16T20:53:59+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-16T20:53:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3626,\"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\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-16T20:53:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - 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\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-16T20:53:59+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-16T20:53:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":3626,"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\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010","name":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil ... on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-16T20:53:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-p-sathyamangalam-suresh-vs-sureshkumar-g-s-kollayil-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil … on 8 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/93402","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=93402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}