Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker5
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. We dismissed this petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution on the 20th of this month. We did not then give our reasons, but promised to give them later. That we now proceed to do.2. Speaking for myself, I should think that this petition does not lie in view of Article 329 of the Constitution. That article which is headed. 'Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters' says:'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution--(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of scats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.' 3. It s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker169
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was the 1st respondent in Election Petition No. 277 of 1957 and the appeal is against the order of the Election Tribunal, Trichur, declaring his election to the Legislative Assembly of the Kerala Slate from the Chalakudi Constituency No. 64, to be void under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the grounds for declaring an election to be void. There are two sub-sections to that section and Sub-section (1) is subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). According to Sub-section (1) (a) of that section, if the Tribunal is of opinion :'that an the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act',the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.3. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker242
Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal is against the decision by the Election Tribunal, Quilon, in Election Petition No. 11 of 1960. Four persons had contested the double member constituency of Mavelikara in theelections to the State Legislature held on February 1, 1960. Two out of the four contestants were on behalf of the Communist Party, and the remaining for the United Front. The result showed each contestant to have secured the following number of votes :1. Gopala Kurup..... 54,3402. Kujanchan..... 84,0423. Chellappan Pillai..... 50,6624. Ramachandra Das..... 50,1702. As the first two, who had contested for the Communist Party, had obtained the majority of the votes, both were declared elected. But on March 12, 1960, one Samuel Arulappan Paul filed the petition in which this appeal arises, seeking declaration of the aforesaid elections being void, and praying the two contestants on behalf of the United Front to be declared elected. One of the grounds taken in the petition for the aforesaid d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker218
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The petitioner is one of the defeated candidates at the recent election to Parliament from Badagara constituency. He contested the election, as an independent candidate. There were three other candidates and they are respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 and 2 were sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Mr. Jagiivan Ram (shortly stated Congress (J) 1 and the 3rd respondent by the Indian Socialist Party. The election was held on 6-3-1971. The votes polled by the candidates were as follows:--(i) Sri K. P. Unnikrish-nan (Rl) ... 1,98.939(ii) ' A. V. Raghavan(petitioner) ... 1,41.135(iii) Smt. Leela Damo-dara Menon (R2) ... 2,236(iv) Sri A. Sreedharan(R3) ... 33,393The results were announced on 12-3-1971, the 1st respondent Sri. K. P. Unnikrishnan having secured a majority, was on that day declared elected.2. The election is Challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent was weeded out from the scene of contest by the Congress High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT599
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether an order issued by Delimitation Commissioner under Sub-section (l) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act and published in the Gazette under Sub-section(2) is susceptible to challenge under Article 226 in view of the specific bar contained in Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner, President of the District Congress Committee, Kannur, has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notification dated 31.05.2005 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India under the Delimitation Act and also for a declaration that the delimitation of constituencies in the State of Kerala in particular in the Kannur district is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Writ of mandamus was also sought for seeking a direction to the Delimitation Commission to consider the various objections raised by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker229
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. Consequent on the resignation of the ministry that caused a breakdown of the constitutional Government in the State of Kerala, the President dissolved the Legislative Assembly and assumed the executive powers of the State to himself by a Proclamation dated September 10, 1964, which was approved by the Parliament by a resolution on September 30, 1964. A general election was held, thereafter, in February/March 1965, for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly in the State; and the names of members elected for the various Constituencies were notified under Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the Kerala Gazette, Extraordinary, No. 41 dated March 17, 1965. 133 members were declared elected, inclusive of the petitioner returned by Kuthupararnba Constituency; but no party was able to secure a working majority of seats in the Legislature. The Patty position among the elected representatives was thus :Communist Party of India(M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1982Ker265
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. Kerala State goes to polls, for the eighth time, on 19th May, 1982. The Election Commission appears to have announced on 8-4-1982 its decision to hold the elections in this State. The election process commenced with the Governor's notification issued in that behalf on 12-4-1982. Parur -- referred to by the Election Commission as '70 Parur L. A. Constituency' --is one among the Constituencies in which the electorate will exercise their franchise. Shri Sivan Pillai is one of the candidates contesting from that Constituency. He belongs to the Communist Party of India. Another candidate is Shri A. C. Jose, described by the petitioner as belonging to the Indian National Congress (Antony Group)'.2. The petition states in para 4 'The United Democratic Front which has sponsored the candidature of Shri A. C. Jose consists of the Indian National Congress (I) which is the ruling party at the Centre apart from other political parties in the State '3. The Election Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker154
Raman Nayar, J.1. At the last General Election held in March 1957, the appellant was declared duly elected to the Legislative Assembly of this State from the General Seat of the Devicolam Constituency. In April the 1st respondent, a candidate whose nomination had been rejected by the Returning Officer, filed the present petition for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void on the ground mentioned in Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition has been allowed by the Election Tribunal, Kottayam, and hence this appeal.2. The 2nd respondent was returned from the reserved seat, and against him no relief has been claimed. He may be ignored altogether and we shall hereafter refer to the 1st respondent (namely, the petitioner before the Tribunal) as merely the respondent.3. The only question is whether the rejection of the respondent's nomination was improper. If it was, it is not disputed that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker140
Mohammed, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by a candidate who contested the by-election to No. 72 Ernakulam Assembly constituency to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. She was supported by a national political party called 'Bharatheeya Janatha Party'. She challenges the withdrawal of symbol 'conch' allotted to her initially by the Returning Officer.2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is condensed thus : The nomination paper submitted by the petitioner was found valid by the second respondent Returning Officer. Subsequently, Ext. P1 notice was issued to her stating that symbol to the contesting candidates would be allotted at 3 p.m. on 20-5-1998 and she was also requested to be present on the said occasion. Pursuant to the said notice she attended the meeting at the relevant time along with other candidates. A list of free symbols as contemplated under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 12 of the Election Symbol Reservation and Allotment Order, 1968 was made available...
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!