M U KRISHNAKUMAR v. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. I see no reason to interfere with the same invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be true that the documents produced by the petitioner was not considered in detail in the impugned order but, the delay…
Judgment
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, JANAHITHAM, T.C 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 K A IQBAL, AGED 58 YEARS S/O ABDHU, MEMBER, WARD NO. 10 ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRAYAMKUDI P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680308 BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).1021/2024 2 P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1021 of 2024 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT The 2nd respondent filed a petition against the petitioner alleging defection and to disqualifiy the petitioner as member of Annamanada Grama Panchayath. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are elected members of representing ward numbers 8 and 10 respectively of Annamanada Grama Panchayath. It is the case of the 2 nd respondent that the petitioner contested and elected as official candidate of the Indian National Congress party. There were 9 members from the Left Democratic Front and 9 members from the United Democratic Front. Hence President and Vice President were elected by the Election Commission by toss. One Mr.P.V.Vinod of CPI(M) was elected as President of Annamanada Grama Panchayath. The Indian National Congress, which is part of UDF coalition submitted a notice of intention to move no confidence motion against the President. The officer authorized by the Commission has decided to convene a W.P(C).1021/2024 3 meeting to consider no confidence motion on 12.12.2022. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the District President of the Indian National Congress issued whip to all members of the Indian National Congress to attend the meeting and vote in favour of the no confidence motion. It is alleged in the petition that, despite communication of whip, the petitioner purposefully invalidated his vote in the voting of no confidence motion by not signing on the reverse side of the ballot paper issued to him. It is the case of the 2 nd respondent that the petitioner was aware of the decision of his political party, but failed to act in accordance with the political directive. Hence the 2nd respondent filed the election petition.
There was a delay of 70 days in filing the original petition before the commission. Hence the 2nd respondent filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the election petition. Ext.P1 is the petition to condone the delay. In the affidavit attached to the petition to condone the delay, the reason for condoning the delay stated by the 2nd respondent is not acceptable is the submission. The petitioner filed objection to the delay condonation petition stating that the medical certificate produced by the respondent is a fake one and he was actively participating in many functions of the locality and he also W.P(C).1021/2024 4 travelled a lot in connection with his business purpose. Ext.P3 is the objection. But the election commission condoned the delay of 70 days in filing the election petition. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Election Commissioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, this Writ Petition is filed.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
The counsel for the petitioner takes me through Exts.P4 to P4(d) minutes. The counsel submitted that the Election Commission issued Ext.P5 order without considering the contention of the petitioner and also without considering the documents produced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, Ext.P2 medical certificate is vague and is fake. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order.
This Court perused Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent. Admittedly, there is only 70 days delay in filing the Original Petition before the Commission. The Election Commission considered the delay condonation petition in detail and passed Ext.P5 order. The Election Commission also considered the dictum laid down by the Apex Court while considering the delay condonation W.P(C).1021/2024 5 petition. Taking a lenient view, the Election Commission allowed the delay condonation petition. Ext.P5 is the order.
Operative part
I see no reason to interfere with the same invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be true that the documents produced by the petitioner was not considered in detail in the impugned order but, the delay was only 70 days. When considering the delay petition, unless there are sufficient reason to reject the explanation for delay, the delay petition is to be allowed normally. Allowing the delay petition to condone short period delay is the rule and dismissal of those petition is an exception. I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. Therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sbna/ P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE W.P(C).1021/2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1021/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P4(a) Exhibit P4(b) Exhibit P4(c) Exhibit P4(d) Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED AS IA 37/2023 IN OP 23/2023 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/03/2023 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY DR. P S ASHA SAVIOR DATED 25-12-2022 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IA 37/2023 IN OP 23/2023 DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 27/06/2023 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 31- 12-2022 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 11- 01-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 19- 01-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27/01/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 03/02/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA 37/2023 IN OP 23/2023 DATED 14/11/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 23/2023 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/03/2023 SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH SUMMONS ELECTION
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Jan 2024. The bench was P V KUNHIKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.