Deekshith V.R. v. State of Kerala and others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 10411 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` DEEKSHITH V.R, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.RAM MOHAN, RESIDING AT 14/143, KALLAMKAI, MOGRAL PUTHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124 BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI RENJISH S. MENON VRINDA T.S. AISWARYA JAYAPAL ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121 4THE MOGRAL PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT MOGRAL PUTHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 671121 5THE SECRETARY, MOGRAL PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MOGRAL PUTHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671124 ``` W.P(C).10411/2024 2 |`6`|`THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION`| |---|---| ||`JANAHITHAM, T.C.27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033`| |`7`|`THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER`| ||`KASARAGOD POLICE STATION,`| ||`KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121`| ||`BY ADV DEEPU LAL MOHAN`| ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SRI RIYAL DEVASSY, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C).10411/2024 3 # **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.10411 of 2024** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Exhibit P12 order bearing No.B1/65/2023/SEC, dated 1/3/2024 of the sixth respondent, so as to secure the ends of justice. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the English translation of Malayalam documents produced in the writ petition, so as to secure the ends of justice. ## And (iii) Such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. _[SIC]_ 2. The petitioner herein was the returned candidate in the election to Ward No.14 of Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat held on 14.12.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Mogar W.P(C).10411/2024 4 Caste of Hindu Religion, which is included in the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Kerala and he contested in the election from the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 12.10.2023, the signature of the petitioner was obtained in a paper under threat and he was made to accompany a group of persons to the office of the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat to hand over the same to the Secretary of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, his mother tongue is Kannada and he does not know how to read and write Malayalam. According to the petitioner, he realized subsequently that, it was a resignation letter. It is the case of the petitioner that the entries in the above form were made by someone else as the petitioner is unaware to read and write Malayalam. On accepting the above form, a copy of which was subsequently obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the Secretary issued a receipt to the persons who accompanied the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the letter of resignation obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The Secretary of the Panchayat on accepting Ext.P2 forwarded it to the State Election Commission on the same W.P(C).10411/2024 5 day itself. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation before the State Election Commission in accordance with Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules 2000 [for short, ‘the Rules 2000’]. It is the case of the petitioner that, he had submitted a complaint before the Station House Officer, Kasargod to the effect that he was forced to submit resignation letter without understanding contents of the same. Subsequently, the Election Commission called upon the petitioner for a hearing and thereafter, the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered in detail. The same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner challenged the Ext.P7 order before this Court by filing W.P(C).No. 42965/2023. This Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the Election Commission to reconsider the matter, in the light of the observation in the judgment. Now the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses as ordered by this Court in Ext.P8 and thereafter, passed Ext.P12 order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed. W.P(C).10411/2024 6 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, from the facts available in this case, it is clear that the Secretary is not convinced about the post in respect of which the resignation is submitted. It is also submitted that the facts reveal that the resignation letter was signed because of the threat and coercion from the person who accompanied the petitioner. The counsel also relied on Ext.P13 to show that, in a similar situation, the Election Commission interfered with the matter. The Standing Counsel submitted that the Election Commission considered the matter in detail discussing all the contentions of the petitioner. The Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in **Annamkutty v. Baby** [2000 KHC 586] and submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Election Commission is very limited. 5. This Court perused Ext.P12 order passed by the Election Commission. The Election Commission considered all the W.P(C).10411/2024 7 contentions of the petitioner in detail and thereafter rejected the contentions. Each and every point raised by the petitioner is discussed in detail in Ext.P12. The Election Commission is a fact ’ finding authority. This Court in **Annamkutty s case** (supra) observed about the jurisdiction of this Court in these types of cases. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: 2. The contention of the petitioner is that a reference cannot be made by the person who resigned himself, but only by the President who is authorised to receive the resignation letter can refer the dispute. S.155(4) of the Act reads as follows: "155. (4) If any dispute regarding any resignation arises, it shall be referred for decision to the State Election Commission and its decision thereon shall be final: Provided that no such dispute shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date on which the resignation takes effect." There is pre condition to the above sub-section that disputes can be referred only by the President. It can be referred by any person who is aggrieved, either by the President or by the person who submits resignation if W.P(C).10411/2024 8 he raise a dispute regarding resignation. Therefore, it cannot be contended that Election Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with such a petition under S.155(4) sent by the person who alleged to have sent the resignation letter. 3. How resignation can be done by a member of a Panchayat is clearly mentioned in S.155(2) of the Act which reads as follows: "155. (2) A Vice President or Chairman of a Standing Committee or any other member of a Panchayat may resign his office by tendering his resignation in writing under his own hand to the President of a Panchayat and the resignation shall take effect on the date on which it is received by the President and the President shall report the fact to the Panchayat at once." 4. Here the person who resigned himself tendered his resignation to a party official and finding of fact is that he did not tender it to the hands of the President. Even though it may be tendered by registered post, it should be done by that person to the President. The finding is that petitioner did not send the resignation letter. It was sent against his will. This is a question of fact decided in favour of first respondent by the Election Commission. The finding of facts arrived at after detailed consideration and after complying with the principles of natural justice cannot be disturbed in a proceeding W.P(C).10411/2024 9 under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of patent illegality or patent error of law or error of jurisdiction, I see no ground to interfere with Ext.P4 order. ## The Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioner are all based on facts. The fact finding authority already considered the matter in detail and rejected the contentions of the petitioner. This Court cannot interfere with the same unless there are patent illegalities. Moreover the contention of the petitioner that, in a similar situation, the Election Commission passed Ext.P13 order, also cannot be accepted because Ext.P13 is passed in the facts and circumstances of that case. The same is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/Jv W.P(C).10411/2024 10 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10411/2024` |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`| |---|---| |`Exhibit-P1`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`15/7/2023 IN O.P.NO.5/2021 ON THE FILES`| ||`OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT; KASARAGOD`| |`Exhibit-P2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF`| ||`RESIGNATION DATED 12/10/2023 OBTAINED`| ||`BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO`| ||`INFORMATION ACT`| |`Exhibit-P3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED`| ||`12/10/2023 ISSUED TO THE STATE ELECTION`| ||`COMMISSION BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit-P4`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION`| ||`DATED 18/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit-P5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE`| ||`STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE`| ||`STATION`| |`Exhibit-P5(a)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED`| ||`15/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE STATION HOUSE`| ||`OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION`| |`Exhibit-P6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`| ||`16/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`| ||`BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MOGRAL PUTHUR`| ||`GRAMA PANCHAYAT`| |`Exhibit-P7`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER`| ||`NO.B1/65/2023/SEC`<br>`DATED`<br>`8/12/2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit-P8`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`| ||`29/1/2024 IN W.P.(C)NO 42965/2023 ON`| ||`THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT`| |`Exhibit-P9`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF EXAMINATION`| ||`OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT HELD ON`| ||`8/11/2023`| |`Exhibit-P10`|`THE DEPOSITION OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT`| ||`ON CROSS EXAMINATION DATED 21/2/2024`| |`Exhibit-P11`|`THE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF THE`| W.P(C).10411/2024 11 ``` PETITIONER DATED 8/11/2023 ``` ``` Exhibit-P12THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B/1/65/2023 SEC DATED 1/3/2024 OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit-P13THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2023 BEARING NO.B1/61/2023/SEC PASSED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ```