IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5430 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (E.OP.NO.22/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ALIMA USMAN, W/O.USMAN, RAYAM MARAKKARVEETTIL, P.O.THIRUNELLUR DESOM, MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.S.SREEDEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.K.SHAREEF, S/O.PUTHIYAVEETTIL PALLETHY KUNJI MUHAMMED, THIRUNELLUR DESOM, MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, P.O.THIRUNELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.K.RAJEESH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, POVILTIRUMADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.THIRUNELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. MR.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ, MR.B.AMANULLA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5430/2010-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE I.A. 424/2010 DTD. 02/02/2010 IN E.O.P. 22/05 FILED BY R.1. BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER TO EXT.P.1. DTD. 04/02/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/02/2010 IN I.A. 424/2010 IN E.O.P. 22/05 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.5430 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 11th March 2010 Judgment In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P3 order, by which the Court below directed that the ballot box shall be opened and the ballot papers be verified before the Presiding Officer, in the presence of the counsel on both sides. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in Election OP No.22/05 before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. The petitioner and the respondents contested the Panchayat election held to Ward No.1 of Mullassery Grama Panchayat. When the results of the election were announced, the petitioner got 312 votes, the first respondent got 311 votes and the second respondent got 192 votes. There were 11 invalid votes and also another invalid vote since there was no signature of the Presiding Officer on the ballot paper. Finally, the petitioner was declared as elected. WPC 5430/10 2 3. The complaint of the first respondent herein in the election petition was that the ballot paper which was declared as invalid due to absence of signature of the Presiding Officer on it, was a vote in his favour. When the Election Petition filed by the first respondent came up for evidence, he filed IA No.424/10 before the Court below, seeking for inspection of the ballot papers in Court. The said IA is produced as Ext.P1 in this Petition. The petitioner herein filed detailed objections to Ext.P1, which is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner alleges that without considering his objections, the Court below passed Ext.P3 order, allowing Ext.P1 IA filed by the respondent herein. The said order is assailed in this Petition. 4. On the very face of Ext.P3, it is unsustainable in law. It is well settled that the opening of the ballot box is very seldom done and only under exceptional circumstances. A prima facie case will have to be established for scrutinising the ballot papers, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the order is only to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the Election OP as expeditiously WPC 5430/10 3 as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 5430/10 4