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 : 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
1. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 6 were candidates at the election held for the reconstitution of Municipalities in Kerala on 5.11.2015. They contested from Ward No.31 in Palakkad Municipality. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 19 votes. Challenging the election on various grounds the first respondent filed E.O.P No.100 of 2015 in Prl Munsiff Court, Palakkad. He deposited Rs.1,000/- in the Munsiff Court. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the Election Petition is not maintainable because the first respondent deposited the amount of Rs.1,000/- as security subsequent to the filing of the petition, and not at the time of its presentation as provided in Sub Section (1) Section 191 of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter called the Act). This was heard as preliminary question. The learned Munsiff found that the first respondent deposited Rs.1000/- in the Munsiff Court when the election petition was presented. This is questioned in this Civil R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The issue in these writ petitions concerns the legality of an appointment made by the President of a Society. The appointment is said to have been ratified subsequently by the managing committee. Acting on the complaints of certain persons, the Assistant Registrar interdicted the appointment; the Society implemented his directive. But the employee was not heard before her termination. Thus, the Court is called upon to decide on the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar and the Society in removing the employee. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 challenges Exts.P2 and P3, the order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the society respectively, through which the petitioner s appointment was sought to be cancelled. 3. In W.P. (C) No.2028 of 2016, the petitioner, who is said to be a rival candidate for the post, raises an issue concerning the competence of the President to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. The appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These six Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 13.10.2015 delivered in a bunch of Writ Petitions. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 was treated as the leading Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge for referring the facts and pleadings. Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 arising out of Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in W.A. No.2441 of 2015 for deciding all these Writ Appeals. The parties shall be referred to as described in Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015. 2. Writ Petition No.4949 of 2015 giving rise to Writ Appeal No.2441 of 2015 was filed by five Writ Petitioners who were all Primary Agricultural Credit Banks. The first petitioner, Perumanna Service Co-operative Bank was registered on 24.02.1966 which is a Class I Special Credit Bank under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 which was enforced in Malabar area. Second petitioner, Olav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. I will rather resign than face an ignominious exit thought - a Legislator. But the Speaker kept the resignation pending and disqualified the Legislator. Was this action justified and justiciable is the short question. 2. The first respondent is the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly of which the petitioner and the second respondent (who was later elected as the Chief Whip of the Kerala Government) are members. The second respondent moved Ext. P1 petition before the first respondent for disqualifying the petitioner in terms of Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The second respondent contended that the petitioner has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belonged and hence disqualified. As many as 19 acts of the petitioner were enumerated in Ext. P1 petition to show that the petitioner has incurred disqualification as per Para (1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The most prominent amongst the items is the letter written by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bushan, C.J. 1. The writ appeal has been filed by the Union of India and other respondents who were respondents 1 to 5 in W.P(C) No.16338/ 2011 filed by Sri.V.Parameswaran, the 1st respondent in the writ appeal. The Cont. Case (C) No.1536/2010 has been filed by another applicant viz., Sri.K.Gopalan complaining disobedience of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2000 in O.P No.1642/1996 (V.K.Subramanian and others v. Government of India and others). The applicant was the 5th petitioner therein. 2. The writ petitioner V.Parameswaran relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2000 in O.P No.1642/1996. Hence, both the writ appeal and the contempt case are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. W.A No.1418/2015 3. The parties are referred as described in the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the Government of India, Ministry of Food under the Regional Director, Southern Region, Madras ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent Co-operative Society under the management of the third respondent Administrative Committee, assails Exhibit P3 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent, permitting the third respondent to fill up ten posts of Salesman/Peon lying vacant in the Bank. 2. As seen from the record, the term of the earlier Managing Committee came to an end in August 2011 for want of quorum; as a result, on 29.08.2011, the third respondent Administrative Committee was appointed. Though the Society initially proposed to have the election on 28.10.2012, the proposal could not materialize because of the pending litigation. It is represented that SLP No.17632/2013 is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, in which status quo orders have already been granted. 3. In the light of the pending litigation, as there is no possibility of having a regular election to the Managing Committee in immediate future, the third r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 20.7.2010 in W.P(C) No.25534 of 2013. First respondent in W.A No.2022 of 2010 was the petitioner. The writ petition has been decided directing payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the writ petitioner as his share towards salvage money. Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge have come up in appeal. 2. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents to which, reply was also filed. In the writ appeals, an affidavit dated 20.11.2015 was also filed by Union of India to which reply affidavit dated 17.12.2015 has been filed by the writ petitioner. 4. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are:- The petitioner, an officer of Indian Navy, was on deputation to the Coast Guard between September, 1995 to December, 1996. Petitioner was the commanding officer o...
Tag this Judgment!