Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker190
M.S. Menon, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred for decision by the Division Bench hearing the Election Appeal relates to the finality of the electoral roll before an Election Tribunal. The question in -the words of the order of reference -- is whether in the-case of a person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who has exercised his vote, the Election Tribunal can go into the question whether or not who had attained the age of twenty-one on the qualifying date, and, on the finding Shat he had not. exclude his vote from the count, or whether under the scheme underlying the relevant provisions of the Constitution, of the Representation of the People Act, J.950, and of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the ques-tion of age is to be finally decided at the regis-tration so that capacity or incapacity on that account is conclusively determined by inclusion in or exclusion from the roll.2. The answer to the question depends essentially on the true scope and meaning of Article 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT228
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a candidate in the election held on 22-4-2006 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 94 Pala Assembly constituency challenges the election of the respondent, the successful candidate.2. The allegation against the respondent is that he filed a false affidavit along with his nomination paper suppressing material facts and omitting to mention the dues he allegedly owes to the Tourism Department. It is alleged that the affidavit filed by the respondent is not in conformity with the directions of the Election Commission of India contained in its Order No:3/ER/2993/JS-II dated 27-3-2003 ('EC Order', for short). Hence, it is contended that there is non-compliance of Sections 33, 33A and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act', for short) and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ('CE Rules', for short) and therefore, the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under Sub-sections (1)(d)(i) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker15
Usha, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. No.22359/ 99 is the appellant. The petitioner is a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha (1999) from No. 2 Cannanore Parliamentary Constituency scheduled to be held on 11-9-1999. The challenge in the original petition was against Ext. P5 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent rejecting petitioner's request to show his name in the ballot paper as 'Mullappally Ramachandrail. He had also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to show his name as 'Mullappally Ramachandran in the ballot paper. The learned single Judge before whom the original petition came up for admission dismissed the same in limine. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has come up in appeal.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had submitted his nomination paper in the prescribed form before the 1st respondent wherein his name was shown as 'Mullappally Ramachandran'. After scrutiny his nomination was accepted on 20-8-1999. The na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1993Ker316
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. These two original petitions are being heard and disposed of by a common order at the admission stage itself. O.P. No. 6344/93 is treated as the main petition and the fate of the other petition (O.P. 6460/93) will depend upon the outcome of the main petition, namely, O.P. 6344/93. O.P. No. 6344/93 The battle at the hustings has now become a battle at the bar. The petitioner is a voter in the electoral rolls of the 8-Ottapalam (S.C.) Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Kerala. He is aggrieved by Ext.P 1 Notification No. 100/ KL--HP/1/92, dt. 8-5-1993 issued by the first respondent Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) amending its earlier Notification No. 100/ KL--HP/1/92(l) dated 19-4-1993. Under the earlier notification as aforesaid, which has been amended by Ext.PI, the poll to 8-Ottapalam (S. C.) Parliamentary Constituency was scheduled to be held on 19-5-1993, which, by virtue of the impugned Ext.P 1 notification, stand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker120
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Election Petition No. 242 of 1957. His petition to set aside the election of the respondent to the Kerala State Assembly from the Manalur Constituency (No. 66) was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Ernakulam, by its order dated the 11th November, 1957. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged by this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. There were three contesting candidates, the petitioner (Congress), the respondent (Communist) and one Govindankutty Nair (P. S. P.) who has not been impleaded either in the petition or in this appeal before us. The polling was on the 11th March, 1957. The respondent secured 23,350 votes, the petitioner 21,355 votes and Govindankutty Nair, 2,486 votes. The result of the election was declared on the 14th March, 1957.3. Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides :'The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1977Ker160
ORDERN.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. E. P. No. 22/1977 is a petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenging the election of the respondent as a member of the House of the People from the Lakshadweep, a Union territory. The petitioner and the respondent were the contesting candidates. Poll was taken on 16-3-1977. The counting of votes took place on 20-3-1977 and on the same day the Returning Officer declared the respondent as elected. The election of the respondent is challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent is guilty of corrupt practices. In answer to the summons from court the respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement traversing the allegations made in the petition, and contending inter alia that the petition is barred by limitation. On the basis of the pleadings issues were raised on 11-7-1977; and issue No. 2 is in the following terms: 'Whether the petition is barred by limitation?'. The respondent filed C. M. P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker19
ORDER1. Petitioner and the respondent along with four others contested in the General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Thodupusha Constituency, styled as 'No. 82, Thodupuzha'. The poll took place on 12-6-1991. Petitioner contested as an independent candidate, supported by Samajwadi Janatha Party. Respondent was the candidate of Congress (I), a constituent of the United Democratic Front, Among the other candidates, one belonged to the Kerala Congress (J), one to Bharathiya Janatha Party and the other two were independents.2. Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly was notified as per notification published in Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 19-4-1991. The date for poling was fixed as 23-5-1991. On account of the assassination of Sri. Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister, on 21-5-1991, polling was postponed to 12-6-1991. Candidates were permitted by the Election Commission to carry on propaganda work till the evening of 10-6-1991.3. The 'ashes' of Sri. Rajiv G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker389
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. After this Court declared in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291, that the calling of a bundh and the enforcement of that call is illegal and unconstitutional and that decision of this Court was confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184, political parties including the appellant before the Supreme Court started calling for Hartals. In Bharat Kumar's case, this Court had made a distinction between a 'bundh' and a 'hartal' and had pointed out that a 'bundh' involved coercion of others into toeing the line of those who called for the bundh and that act was unconstitutional since it violated the rights of others. This Court proceeded on the basis that a hartal was a peaceful act of non-co-operation or was a passive resistance movement and a call for it did not involve coercion of a person who did not want to join the hartal into compulsorily participating in the hartal. The Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker153
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner calls in question the election of the first respondent to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 70 Parur Constituency. He has filed this petition under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for brevity, 'the Act'.2. The petition reveals the following facts. The petitioner, the respondent and four others were contesting candidates in the election of the No. 70 Parur Constituency. The notification under Sub-section. (2) of Section 15 of the Act was published in the Official Gazette of the State of Kerala on 17th Apr. 1982, calling upon all the assembly constituencies in the State of Kerala to elect members for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly for the State. The poll took place on 19-5-1982 in all the constituencies including No, 70 Parur Constituency.3. The petitioner contested the election as a candidate of the Communist Party of India, a constituent p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker259
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In the general election to the Kerala assembly held on 23-3-1987 ten candidates including one Mr. Cyriac John and respondents 1 to 3 contested for the No. 30 Sultan's Battery seat. Real contest was between first respondent and Mr. Cyriac Joha First respondent won by a margin of over 4,000 votes. Petitioner, an elector and the election agent of Mr. Cyriac John, seeks to declare the election of the first respondent void on various grounds. After the trial of the case started, at a time when the petitioner was partly examined as P.W. 1, first respondent wanted maintainability of the petition for want of cause of action to be heard preliminary and as agreed to on behalf of the petitioner also, the examination of P.W. 1 was suspended and the matter heard. 2. But at the time of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner took objection to the preliminary point being heard, seeking authority from the decision in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770. T...
Tag this Judgment!