IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No.460 of 2008 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).13880/2007(B) DATED 06/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- M.P. VEERENDRA KUMAR, M.P., PRESIDENT JANATHA DAL (SECULAR), KERALA STATE COMMITTEE J.P.BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DR.NEELA LAHOTHADASAN NADAR, "MANASI", THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL. 3. SRI.N.HARIHARAN, S/O.LATE SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, STATE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), NO.10, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. *(ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO.353/2008 DATED 3.4.2008). R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN. R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.), SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, SRI.P.A.KUMARAN & SMT.VINEETHA B. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.460 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13880/2007 dated 6th June, 2007. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Judge has issued the following direction. The same is as under: “The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that this matter is under serious consideration in consultation with the Election Commission of India. This is recorded. This court hopes that a solution for the same would be found by the State Election Commission in consultation with the Election Commission of India within the shortest possible time”. (2). In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: The first prayer is to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the State Election Commission. The second prayer is to direct the first respondent in the writ petition not to implement Ext.P5 order in the State of Kerala any longer until the Election Commission of India decides in accordance with the powers vested in it as to who are the real representatives of the Janatha Dal (Secular), a registered political party. (3). Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for W.A.460/2008 -2- the appellant would contend that it is the Election Commission of India alone has to consider firstly the change of address pleaded by the petitioner and secondly the allotment of symbol of (“lady farmer carrying paddy on her head”) which is the reserved symbol of Janatha Dal (Secular) in the State of Kerala and Karnataka to any candidate in the ensuing Assembly/Lok Sabha elections. (4). Before approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed letters/representations before the Election Commission of India dated 24-12-2006, 16-3-2007 and 8-5-2007. Letters dated 24-12-2006 and 8-5-2007 are not made available to us along with the writ petition papers or writ appeal papers. What is produced along with the writ petition is the letter dated 16-3-2007. In that letter, the prayer made by Mr.Surendra Mohan, who claims to be the President reads as follows: “ I may submit that in the light of the above facts the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to effect necessary changes in its records with regard to Janata Dal (Secular). It is also prayed that the Commission may be pleased not to entertain any application submitted in the name of Janata Dal (Secular), by any person other than Shri.Surendra Mohan, President of Janata Dal (Secular) for concessions under paragraph 10 of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 for allotment of the symbol of “Lady farmer carrying paddy on her head” which is reserved symbol of Janata Dal (Secular) in the States of Kerala and Karnataka, to any candidate in the ensuing Assembly/Lok Sabha elections.” W.A.460/2008 -3- (5). At the time of hearing of this writ appeal for grant of interim prayer, Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that till a decision is taken by the Central Election Commission, the State Election Commission has no power either to change the address or to allot the symbol of “Lady farmer carrying paddy on her head”. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P5 order passed by the State Election Commission is one without jurisdiction, illegal and improper. (6). The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondent has also produced a communication issued by the Election Commission of India to Sri. Surendra Mohan dated 8th November, 2007. In that letter, after referring to the letters of Sri.Surendra Mohan dated 24-12-2006, 16-3-2007 and 8-5-2007 the same are rejected as under: “In view of the position explained above, the claim made by you in your above referred letters dated 22-12-2006, 16-3-2007 and 8-5-2007 has not been accepted, and the matter raised therein has been treated by the Commission as closed.” (7). In view of the communication of the Election Commission of India dated 8th November, 2007, to Sri. Surendra Mohan, who claims to be the President of Janata Dal (Secular), in our opinion, it may not be proper for us to grant any interim order sought for by the appellant. Accordingly, the W.A.460/2008 -4- interim prayer sought for by the appellant is rejected. (8). After rejecting the interim prayer, Sri.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, if for any reason, the State Election Commission hears the matter and takes a decision one way or other, the reliefs sought in the writ appeal may become infructuous. Since we have refused to grant the interim prayer sought for, to the appellant, the State Election Commission has to proceed to decide the case of the parties and then take a decision one way or other. If for any reason, the parties are aggrieved by that decision, they may approach the appropriate forum. In view of the above, the writ appeal is closed. (9). Consequently I.A.No. 334/2008 is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS