IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30763 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDHU.K. (SINDHU KAMALAMMA), AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH, KANJERAVILA VEEDU, MARANAD.P.O., CHITTAKOD, EZHUKONE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN SRI.N.N.ARUN BECHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER & THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, G. 37, EZHUKONE GRAMA PANCHAYAT & SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE ASSISTANT RETURINING OFFICER, G 37, EZHUKONE GRAMA PANCHAYAT & SECRETARY, EZHUKONE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30763 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a resident of ward No.15 of Ezhukone Grama Panchayat, submitted a nomination in the prescribed form before the 3rd respondent Returning Officer for contesting in the ensuing elections to Ezhukone Grama Panchayat. When the nomination form was taken up for scrutiny on 5.10.2010 the Returning Officer declared the nomination form to be invalid for the reason that the petitioner has not affixed her signature to the form of oath or affirmation as required under section 29(e) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner challenges the said decision on the ground that the form of oath or affirmation prescribed in the first Schedule to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act does not insist on signature of the candidate. She has an alternate contention that she had subscribed to the oath before the 4th respondent Assistant Returning Officer before whom the nomination paper was submitted and that he took the petitioner's signature on a paper. The relevant averments are contained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition and in ground D thereof. The petitioner is not however certain as to whether she had subscribed W.P(C).No.30763 of 2010 -:2:- her signature to an oath or an affirmation. According to the petitioner it is for the Returning Officer to ensure that candidate makes and subscribes to an oath or affirmation. In my opinion it is for the candidate seeking election to make and subscribe either to an oath or an affirmation. In the instant case, apart from vaguely stating that she had subscribed her signature to an oath/ affirmation, the petitioner has not stated with certainty as to whether she had subscribed her signature to an oath or affirmation in the prescribed form. I also find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the form of oath or affirmation does not require to be subscribed and it is enough if the candidate fills up the prescribed form and submits it to the Returning Officer. The words 'make and subscribe' before the Returning Officer or any other person authorised by the State Election Commission an oath or affirmation make it clear that the candidates have to make an oath or affirmation and subscribe their signature to it. I therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30763 of 2010 ------------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th October, 2010