Ahammed Basheer S/o P.C Muhammad Haji v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **AHAMMED BASHEER S/O. P.C MUHAMMAD HAJI, HADDAD NAGAR, P.O BEKAL FORT, KASARGOD 671 316** **BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 696 001** - **2 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 033** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD 671 121** - **4 THE RETURNING OFFICER, G14022, PALLIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES), PALLIKKARA, KASARGOD 671 316** - **5 M.V HAMSA, AGED 56 YEARS** - **S/O. M. UMMER HAJI, M.U.H VILLA, PARAYANGAANAM, P.O MOUVVAL, KASARGOD 671 315** **SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN – SC SRI.C.M.NAZAR - GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **2** ## **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** ## **W.P.(C) No.26387 of 2020** ## **---------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The fifth respondent has submitted nomination for the election to Pallikkara Grama Panchayat from Ward No.2. The petitioner has also submitted nomination from the very same ward. At the time of scrutiny of the nominations, the petitioner has raised objections to the right of the fifth respondent to contest the election. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent is disqualified from contesting the election in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as he has suppressed vital information against Clause 12(b) of Ext.P1 nomination form. The objection raised by the petitioner was overruled and the nomination of the fifth respondent was accepted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Returning Officer. Hence this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission. **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** **3** 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, in the light of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Article 243-O of the Constitution reads thus: ## “ **243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.** — ## Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” It is seen that the question whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to challenge an improper rejection of a nomination paper, while the election is in progress, has been answered in the negative by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **N.P. Ponnuswami v.** **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** **4** **The Returning Officer** , **Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist** [AIR 1952 SC 64], in the context of the _pari materia_ provision in Article 329(b) of the Constitution, holding that irregularities vitiating the election cannot be made the subject matter of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress. In **Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner** , **New Delhi and others** [AIR 1978 SC 851], another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court however demarcated the area which is available for interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant passage of the judgment dealing with the same reads thus: "But what is banned is not anything whatsoever done or directed by the Commissioner but everything he does or directs in furtherance of the election, not contrary wise. For example, after the President notifies the nation on the holding of elections under S.15 and the Commissioner publishes the calender for the poll under S.30, if the latter orders Returning Officers to accept only one nomination or only those which come from one party as distinguished from other parties or independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not. Because the Commissioner is preventing an election, not promoting it and the Court's review of that order will facilitate the flow, not stop the stream. Election, wide or narrow be its connotation, means choice from a possible plurality monolithic politics not being our genius or **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** **5** reality, and if that concept is crippled by the Commissioner's act, he holds no election at all." In **Manda Jaganath v. K.S.Rathnam and thers** [AIR 2004 SC 3600], after referring to **Mohinder Singh Gill,** the Apex Court held, in the context of a decision taken by the Returning Officer in declining to allot to a candidate the symbol reserved for his political party, that the question whether the Returning Officer is justified in taking such a decision is not a matter for the High Court to decide in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Paragraph 12 of the judgment in the said case dealing with the said conclusion reads thus: **12** . In our opinion, whether the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. After arriving at the conclusion aforesaid, referring to the passage from **Mohinder Singh Gill** extracted above, the Apex Court has explained in **Manda Jaganath,** the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution thus: "Of course, what is stated by this Court herein above is **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** ## **6** not exhaustive of a Returning Officer's possible erroneous action which are amenable to correction in the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. But the fact remains that such errors should have the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election which is the paramount consideration. If by an erroneous order conduct of the election is not hindered then the Courts under Art.226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the orders of the Returning Officers, remedy for which lies in an election petition only." In the light of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that only if the impugned decision/action has the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or hinder the progress of the election, this court would be justified in entertaining the writ petition. The case on hand does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement of law. The correctness of the decision of the Returning Officer as to the eligibility of the fifth respondent to contest the election cannot be considered in this proceedings while the election is in progress. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** **7** preclude the petitioner from challenging the decision impugned in the writ petition in an election petition instituted in accordance with the relevant statute. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** pv **8** ## **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOMINATION DATED 19-11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED NIL OF BUILDING ID 51202010011827 SHOWING THE TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB-SITE** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED NIL OF BUILDING ID ID 51202010012128 SHOWING THE TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB-SITE** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED NIL OF BUILDING ID 51202010009969 SHOWING THE TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB-SITE** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED NIL OF BUILDING ID 51202010009969 SHOWING THE TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WB-SITE** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **9** ## **WP(C).No.26387 OF 2020(W)** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20-11-2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**