IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20918 of 2010(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PRASANNAKUMAR P.P., S/O.PADMANABHAN.P.K, AGED 54 YEARS, PARAYIMITTATHUVELIYIL, PERUMBALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY MR.M.K.DILEEPAN, ADVOCATE. MR.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SECRETARY, PERUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMBALAM PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMISSION FOR R1. MR.K. RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20918 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a voter in Ward No.V of Perumbalam Grama Panchayath. He had contested in the Panchayath Election for the year 2005 from Ward No.IV but he was defeated. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Election Commission disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the elections for a period of five years on his failure to lodge the account of election expenses. 2. The stand taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner was not heard by the Commission before passing the order and the order was not served at any point of time. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has filed a statement. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not submit his account of election expenses either within the stipulated time or thereafter. The same was reported by the authorized officer in Annexure-A. Thereafter the State Election Commission issued W.P.(C) No.20918/2010 2 show cause notice as per Annexure-B dated 18.07.2006. The petitioner received the show cause notice as evidenced by Annexure-C acknowledgment card but he did not respond to the same. Final notification has been produced as Annexure-D dated 28.06.2008. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no proper proceedings issued by the Commission is evidently incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner may be allowed an opportunity to file a representation before the Election Commission stating his defences in the matter. The dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Election Commission if it is legally permissible. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp