K. Jayaprakash Babu Thadathiprambil Veedu, Thrikalangode P.O., Malappuram v. The State Election Commissioner, Kerala State Election Commission, Thrikalangode Grama Panchayat, Thrikalangode Grama Panchayat Secretary, K.K. Janardanan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/27TH JYAISHTA 1935 WP(C).No. 15234 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.JAYAPRAKASH BABU THADATHIPRAMBIL VEEDU, THRIKKALANGODE P.O. MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER THE KERALA STAE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695001. 2. THE THRIKKALANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT THRIKKALANGODE P.O., MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-676505. 3. THE SECRETARY THRIKKALANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRIKKALANGODE P.O. MALAPPURAM-676505. 4. K.K.JANARDANAN MEMBER, WARD NO. 9, THRIKKALANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT MALAPPURAM-676505. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. RINNY STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15234 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF RESIGNATION FORM FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT 1ST RESPONDENT AFTER FILLING THE DETAILS. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-05-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OP 124/2012. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -------------------------- JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN,J ------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 15234 OF 2013 ---------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] June, 2013. ## JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the Kerala State Election Commission dismissing a petition filed by him. The petitioner was elected to the second respondent Panchayat from Ward No:21 in an election conducted in the year 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was elected as Vice President of the Panchayat also. Since there were differences of opinion between the petitioner and the local leaders of the political parties due to pressure from them, it is contended that, he had submitted Ext.P1, which is the form stipulated by Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules, 2000 (the 'Rules' for short). It is alleged that, in Ext.P1, he had not indicated the post from which he was resigning. Nor had he furnished all the necessary details in the form. According to the petitioner, he had no intention to resign from the post and had submitted the resignation on sudden provocation. Therefore, it is WPC 15234/2013 2 contended that the said form cannot be considered to be a proper resignation under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner has a further case that the first respondent had also not acknowledged the receipt of the resignation letter, as required by the Rules. In spite of the above, the third respondent forwarded the letter to the first respondent. Since the petitioner had not submitted a proper resignation letter, he cannot be said to have resigned from his post, it is contended. Though he had filed OP 124/2012 before the Kerala State Election Commission, as per Ext.P6, his petition has been dismissed. 2. According to Adv. Biju C.Abraham who appears for the petitioner, Ext.P1 cannot be said to be a proper resignation letter, in compliance with Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Adv.Murali Purushothaman who appears for the first respondent points out that Ext.P1 has been produced for the first time before this Court and that Ext.P2 was the document that was produced and marked as Ext.R1 before the first respondent. Therefore, according to the counsel, Ext.P1 is not a reliable document. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since no proper resignation has been submitted by him, he cannot be said to have resigned from his post. Ext.P6 has been passed WPC 15234/2013 3 relying entirely on Ext.P3 which is an appeal submitted by the petitioner. The statements made by him therein should not be held against the petitioner to find that he has resigned, it is contended. 3. Adv. Murali Purushothaman appears for the first respondent. According to the counsel for the first respondent, Ext.P3 discloses the case pleaded by the petitioner. Since he himself has admitted to his resignation, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for having relied on the case pleaded by the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court reported in Unni v. Perinjanam Grama Panchayat {2009(3) KLT 150} 4. Heard. It is true that Ext.P1 is the proforma under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules. Though the same appears to have been signed by the petitioner, portions thereof have been left unfilled. But, Ext.P2 which is a similar form as Ext.P1 has the required columns filled up. The portion that the Secretary had to fill up are also filled up in Ext.P2. The case of the petitioner is that though he had submitted his resignation letter, he had no intention to resign. The said resignation letter also does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(1) of the rules. According to the counsel for the first respondent, the petitioner had no such case before the first respondent. WPC 15234/2013 4 5. Though there are dissimilarities in the handwriting as well as other aspects, it is difficult to find out whether Ext.P1 or Ext.P2 is the document that was submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is a document that could be created by the petitioner at any time on the proforma that is easily available. However, an enquiry into the said aspect is unnecessary in view of the case put forward by the petitioner in Ext.P3. It is stated in Ext.P3 that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from his post as Vice President and member of the Panchayat. The petitioner's case is only that the resignation is not in the proper form. He has further stated that the discrepancy was not with the object of misleading the Panchayat Secretary and that the discrepancy was not deliberately made. What appears from the above statements is that the petitioner had no dispute regarding the fact that he had in fact resigned, when he submitted Ext.P3 to the first respondent. His dispute was only with respect to the form of his resignation letter. Having admitted that he had resigned from his post, to take exception to the form in which he himself had submitted the resignation letter, with the object of taking advantage of the discrepancies that are alleged to have crept into the same cannot be countenanced. The petitioner also cannot be WPC 15234/2013 5 permitted to go back on his admission and take up a contention that he had not resigned. The election commission has therefore rightly rejected his contentions. 6. It is not in dispute that the resignation letter was in fact submitted to the Secretary. The dispute is only that the Secretary had not acknowledged the receipt of the same. However, Ext.P2 belies the said contention. 7. A similar issue was considered by this Court in the decision reported in Unni v. Perinjanam Grama Panchayat (supra) . In the said case, though a resignation letter was submitted, the petitioner resiled from his resignation later, contending that he had submitted the same in a disturbed state of mind. After considering the question, this Court has held that the resignation letter shall take effect from the point of delivery thereof to the Secretary. Therefore, without the delivery of the resignation letter, the resignation cannot take effect. In Ext.P6 the relevant portion of the said judgment has been extracted. In the present case, Ext.P2 shows that the Secretary has acknowledged receipt thereof. For the above reason, the resignation letter has taken effect. WPC 15234/2013 6 In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P6 order of the Election Commission. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. jj /True copy/ Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge P.S.to Judge WPC 15234/2013 7