High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-25Dismissed

Parameswaran C.M. v. State Election Commission, Kerala, and Others (Returning Officer, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath; Secretary, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.25818 of 2020(B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2020-11-25
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The High Court held that the impugned decision does not fall within the writ jurisdiction during an ongoing election, as per Article 243-O(b); the petitioner may challenge the decision in an election petition under the relevant statutes; the judgment clarifies that this order does not preclude such electoral challenges.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Parameswaran C.M.

Respondents

State Election Commission, Kerala
Returning Officer, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath
Secretary, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI

Case Synopsis & Summary

Parameswaran C.M., a candidate for Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath Ward No.17, challenged the Returning Officer’s rejection of his nomination on the ground that he had produced the original deposit receipt under Section 53 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 with his nomination. The Returning Officer rejected Ext.P3 as unsatisfactory, prompting the petitioner to contend that the said reason was incorrect and unsustainable. The State Election Commission’s Standing Counsel opposed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, arguing that interference by courts in electoral matters is barred while elections are in progress. The judgment surveys constitutional and jurisprudential precedents, including N.P. Ponnuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill, to delineate the circumscribed role of writ jurisdiction in electoral disputes. It is emphasized that Article 243-O(b) bars extraordinary court review of electoral decisions during the election, except where the action interferes with the free flow of the election. The court ultimately holds that the petition is devoid of merits; however, it notes that the petitioner may challenge the impugned decision in an election petition under applicable statutes. The judgment closes with the instruction that the writ petition is dismissed, and also clarifies that this ruling does not preclude later challenge via election petition with proper procedure.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 53 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Article 243-O(b) of the ConstitutionArticle 243-O of the ConstitutionArticle 243K of the ConstitutionSection 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters (Article 243-O)
pari materia

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he produced the original cash receipt for the deposit under Section 53 Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 along with his nomination; the Returning Officer rejected the nomination citing Ext.P3; Ext.P3 is said to be incorrect and unsustainable; the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P3 and to permit acceptance of the nomination; the writ petition contends that the nomination was wrongly rejected and that the proceedings were illegal or improper, violating the statutory deposit requirement; the petitioner asserts that resolution of the dispute should occur outside the present writ context and within the election petition framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The State Election Commission, through the Standing Counsel, contends that Article 243-O(b) bars interference in electoral matters via writ petition while elections are in progress; the impugned rejection of nomination is a matter within the electoral process; the petition is not maintainable under the Constitution; the appropriate remedy to challenge such decisions is an election petition under relevant statute; the Respondents argue that the writ petition should be dismissed for want of maintainability and merits.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Namakkal, Salem Dist	AIR 1952 SC 64	Positive	Constitution Bench decision establishing that irregularities affecting elections cannot be challenged by writ during the election, illustrating the bar to judicial interference in electoral matters.
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner	AIR 1978 SC 851	Partly Overruled / Limited	Constitution Bench clarifies the scope of writ interference; while some orders may be attacked if they hinder the electoral process, the broad prohibition from writ jurisdiction is not absolute, introducing a limited, context-based exception.
Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and thers	AIR 2004 SC 3600	Positive	Held that the decision of the Returning Officer rejected under Form B cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in writ jurisdiction and should be raised in an election petition, reinforcing the limited scope of writs in election matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Parameswaran C.M. v. State Election Commission, Kerala, and Others (Returning Officer, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath; Secretary, Varandarappilly Grama Panchayath) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.25818 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONER:** **PARAMESWARAN C.M., AGED 63 YEARS S/O. LATE MAMMEN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, VARANDARAPILLY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-680 303** **BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE ELECTION COMMISSION**| |---|---| ||**KERALA, 'JANAHITHAM', TC 27/6(2), VIKAS**| ||**BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033**| |**2**|**RETURNING OFFICER,**| ||**G-068 VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB**| ||**DIVISION, VARANDARAPILLY P.O., THRISSUR-680**| ||**303**| |**3**|**SECRETARY,**| ||**VARANADARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, VARANDARAPILLY P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 303**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SC. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, GP. C.M NAZAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2020, THE COURT ON 25-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..2.. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 25th day of November, 2020** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner has submitted nomination for the election to Varandarappilly Grama Panchayat from Ward No.17. The nomination submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Returning Officer holding that the petitioner has not produced the original of the receipt evidencing the deposit made by him in terms of Section 53 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The case of the petitioner is that he has in fact produced the original receipt along with the nomination and the reason stated in Ext.P3 for rejecting his nomination is therefore incorrect and unsustainable. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 decision of the Returning Officer on that ground in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..3.. Commission. 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 W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..4.. 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. 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 W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..5.. other parties or independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not. Because the Commissioner is preventing anelection, not promoting it and the Court's review of that order will facilitate theflow, not stop the stream. Election, wide or narrow be its connotation, means choice from a possible plurality monolithic politics not being our genius or 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 W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..6.. 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 hereinabove is 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. An adjudication as to whether the petitioner has produced the original of the receipt of the deposit made by him W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..7.. cannot be undertaken by this court 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 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.** ds W.P.(C) No.25818 of 2020 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.04141670 DTD 18.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO.A32262/2020 /ELECTION DTD 20.11.2020 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE REJECTION OF NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 21.11.2020**