IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1708 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- O.P.(ELE).2/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- REJI ILLIKKAPARAMBIL @ P.V. REJI, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, ILLIKKAPARAMBIL (H), MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 305. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- BIJU V.JOHN, S/O.LATE V.V. JOHNY, AGED 36 YEARS, VEEPANATH (H), KAKKAD, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 305. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SRI.MANU GOVIND. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 1708 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ELECTION O.P. NO. 2/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY DATED 23/11/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ELECTION O.P. NO.2/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY DATED 21/01/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.(ELC) NO.2/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY DATED 08/04/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ O.P.(C).No.1708 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The respondent in O.P.(Ele).No.2/2010 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kolencherry, is the petitioner. The O.P is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the said court. The petitioner and the respondent were contested as candidates for the election to Thiruvaniyoor Grama Panchayath from Ward No.16 of Mamala constituency. The petitioner secured 461 votes and won the election by a margin of 52 votes and therefore, declared as elected as member of the aforesaid Grama Panchayath. The election petition is filed by the defeated candidate for a decree of declaration that the election of the petitioner is invalid, inoperative and to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner filed written statement denying the material averments in the election petition and prayed for dismissal of the suit. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, it is further averred that the election petition is defective and is not maintainable and therefore requested the court to raise the ::2:: O.P.(C).No.1078 Of 2011 question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. In paragraphs 3 & 12, the petitioner pointed out that the election petition is defective and therefore, liable to be dismissed. According to the petitioner, the respondent, who is the petitioner in the O.P has not complied with the procedure contemplated under the Representation of People's Act and inter alia contended that the documents produced along with the writ petition are not property attested by the applicant, that the affidavit filed in form No.28 does not comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 91 of the Panchayath Raj Act and contended that the documents produced along with the writ petition are not properly attested by the applicant and does not contain the particulars of the alleged corrupt practice. It is also pointed out in paragraph 3 that the applicant did not supply the documents attached to the election petition and that all the documents are not properly verified and attested. 3. On the basis of the request for early hearing regarding the maintainability, the learned Munsiff heard the question of maintainability and passed Ext.P3 order. The learned Munsiff ::3:: O.P.(C).No.1078 Of 2011 considered the contentions raised in paragraphs 3 & 12 of the written statement. The question as to whether the petition contained the required particulars of the corrupt practices was examined in detail. After perusing the relevant averments in the O.P, the learned Munsiff held that the petitioner has specifically stated the corrupt practices done by the first respondent. I have also gone through the relevant paragraphs in the Election O.P. The O.P contains the necessary averments regarding the corrupt practices alleged to have been done by the respondent in the election petition. After reading the election petition, the learned Munsiff also rightly held that the petitioner has direct knowledge about some of the acts done by the respondent and the petitioner disclosed the name of persons from whom he got information about the corrupt practices done by the respondent during the course of election campaign. In these circumstances, the learned Munsiff rejected the contention that the election petition is defective for want of necessary particulars regarding the corrupt practices done by the respondent in the election petition. The second question canvassed by the petitioner in his written ::4:: O.P.(C).No.1078 Of 2011 statement is that the affidavit filed in Form No.28 does not comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Panchayath Raj Act. The learned Munsiff, after perusing the affidavit found that the affidavit contains the affirmation that the applicant has personal knowledge about the allegations in the relevant paragraphs and that the applicant disclosed the name of the persons from whom he has got information about the allegations in those paragraphs. On further examination the affidavit would also show the same was properly attested and verified. The learned Munsiff also repelled the contention of the petitioner that copy of the petition supplied to him was not properly attested. So, on the basis of the materials on record and on a reading of the O.P., which is repeatedly read over to me also today, the learned Munsiff pointed out that there is no basis for the contentions raised that the O.P. is defective. The findings are entered by the learned Munsiff based on materials on record. The O.P and the affidavit are perused, read and examined by the learned Munsiff and the learned Munsiff was convinced that the formalities required under law has been complied with. In these ::5:: O.P.(C).No.1078 Of 2011 circumstances, I am of the view that a different view is not possible in the given circumstances. Therefore, I find that no grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is for the learned Munsiff to direct the petitioner to cure the defects, if any exists. The writ petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-