IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 599 of 2007() --------------------- AS.145/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD EOP.66/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------ P.K.SUKUMARAN,S/O.C.KUTTY,AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NILA", KARINGARAPPULLY P.O., KODUMBO VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------- 1. M.ARAVINDKSHAN S/O.MALLU, AGED 36 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.26, AYYAPPANKAVU, KARINGARAPPULLY,KODUMBU POST, PALAKKAD. 2. DHARMAPUTHRAN S/O.VELAN AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHAN KADU HOUSE, OLASSERRY KODUMBU POST, PALAKKAD. 3. K.JAGADEESAN, S/O.KITTU, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANJIKUNNU,KODUMBU, PALAKKAD. ADV. M.ARAVINDAKSHAN (PARTY) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.599 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.2007 in an election appeal numbered as A.S.No.145 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Palakkad. The revision petitioner has filed a petition, numbered as Ele.O.P.No.66 of 2005 before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad impeaching the election of the 1st respondent as a member to the Kodumba Grama Panchayat. Revision petitioner and also respondents 1 to 3 contested the election from Ward No.1 of the above Panchayat in the general election held on 26.9.2005. The 1st respondent, who secured majority of the votes was declared elected. His election was challenged by the revision petitioner contending that in the Form 2A application submitted by him with his nomination paper, he had furnished incorrect statement as to his liability. Though he owed liability to a nationalised bank, Bank of India, in column '3' of Form 2A application, neither the name of that bank CRP.599/07 2 nor the liability due to that Bank was mentioned, was the citadel of the case pressed into service by the revision petitioner to impeach the election of the returned candidate. The 1st respondent resisted the challenge contending that all necessary details required to be furnished had been made in Form 2A submitted with his nomination paper. It was further contended that disqualification, if any, would apply to him only if such disqualification falls under Section 34 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Referring to Section 34 (i) (j) of the Act, it was further contended that liability to the Government or Panchayat alone would invite disqualification against him in contesting the election. The learned Munsiff after trial, on the basis of the materials produced, upheld the challenge canvassed by the revision petitioner (the petitioner in the election petition) and ordered for setting aside the election of the 1st respondent holding that the ground under Section 102 (1) (ca) of the Act had been established in the case as the returned candidate had violated the mandate under Section 52 (1A) of the Act. The 1st respondent challenged the decision of the learned Munsiff preferring an appeal as A.S.No.145 of 2006 before the CRP.599/07 3 District Court, Palakkad. The learned District Judge after reappreciating the materials tendered and hearing the counsel on both sides, reversed the decision of the learned Munsiff holding that in order to establish the ground under Section 102 (1) (ca) of the Act for setting aside the election of a returned candidate, it must be established that Form 2A furnished with the nomination paper is 'fake'. Omission to furnish some particulars in Form 2A, it was held by the learned District Judge, would not amount to furnishing of a fake Form, and in that view of the matter, appeal was allowed and the election petition was dismissed. That decision by the appellate court is challenged in the revision by the petitioner in the election petition. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent, the returned candidate had appeared in person. But at the time of hearing of the revision, he was not present. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed the judgment rendered by the appellate court contending that CRP.599/07 4 non-furnishing of particulars of liability as mandated under Section 52 (1A) of the Act in Form 2A submitted with the nomination paper by itself would render that Form 2A as an invalid document, and in the absence of a sufficient explanation from the candidate who gave such an incomplete Form 2A, it has to be treated as fake. Admittedly, in the present case, the returned candidate owed liability towards the Bank of India, a nationalised bank, but in his Form 2A application, he had not furnished any particulars of that liability with that bank in the relevant column in Form 2A. According to the counsel, he has referred to only the liability to an Urban Co-operative Bank and not that relating to the Bank of India in the Form. The appellate court went wrong in interfering with the decision rendered by the trial Judge that the returned candidate, the 1st respondent, had flouted the mandate under Section 52 (1A) of the Act in not furnishing the true particulars of his liability in Form 2A and thereby the Form submitted by him was a fake. The learned counsel therefore urged for reversing the judgment rendered by the appellate court and restoring the order passed by the trial court. CRP.599/07 5 4. I have perused the order rendered by the learned Munsiff and also the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in appeal taking into consideration the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the revision petitioner. Section 102 (1) (a) to (ca) of the Act provides the grounds under which an election of a candidate to a Panchayat can be impeached on the ground that it is void. The grounds envisaged under Section 102 (1) (d) of the Act too provide for setting aside the election, treating it as void subject to the condition that over and above establishing the ground envisaged thereunder, it should be further shown that the result of the election had been materially affected on such ground. In the present case, the election of the returned candidate had been impeached by the revision petitioner (petitioner in the election petition) on the ground that Form 2A submitted by him with his nomination paper was fake for the reason that he did not furnish true particulars of his liability due to a nationalised bank, Bank of India in that Form. The learned District Judge has held that omission to furnish particulars in Form 2A by itself would not render that Form a CRP.599/07 6 fake. Something more is required to hold that the Form 2A furnished with the nomination is fake to invite disqualification and rendering of the election of a returned candidate as void under Section 102 (1) (ca) of the Act is the view taken by the learned District Judge. Having regard to the provisions covered by Section 102 (1) (ca) of the Act, it has to be stated that the view taken by the learned District Judge is proper and correct. Furnishing of incomplete details or omission to furnish even a necessary particular in Form 2A by itself cannot be canvassed as sufficient ground to hold that that Form is a fake. Even an incorrect statement or assuming the worst a false statement in Form 2A is not enough to treat such Form as fake. The election of a returned candidate to be declared 'void' for the reason that Form 2A submitted by him with his nomination is fake, it must be specifically pleaded and proved in what manner the omission or the false statement has rendered that Form fake. A mere omission to state that he had availed a loan from a bank or such other concern as mentioned in Section 52 (1A) of the Act is not enough to hold that the Form 2A submitted by him is a fake. If only necessary particulars are given in the election petition, in CRP.599/07 7 what manner the omission to supply the details would render the Form 2A submitted by the returned candidate a fake and an opportunity extended to such returned candidate to furnish his explanation to that allegation, the court will be in a position to examine whether such omission to state the particular in the Form rendered it fake. In the present case, other than stating that there was an omission as to the liability of the returned consolidate to a bank in the Form 2A submitted with his nomination, no more particulars were given to hold that Form 2A furnished by him was a fake. When that be so, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the challenge raised against the returned candidate under Section 102 (1) (ca) of the Act has not been made out and the decision rendered by the trial court holding so is liable to be reversed, does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.599/07 8