IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9324 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- CHAMIYAR (MEMBER NO.1082) S/O.SHANKARAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, NAYAMBADAM, POODANUR P.O., RESIDING AT MUNDUR 1 VILLAGE PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER/ DAIRY FARM INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, PALAKKAD. 3. VELIKKAD KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO.13 (D) APCOS, VELIKKAD (P.O.), MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.A.V.RAVI SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9324/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DTD. 11/02/2008 PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 4/03/2008 MADE BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE BEARING 5653/2008/A1, DTD. 3/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9324 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the rejection of his nomination paper. He submitted the nomination paper to contest from a reserved constituency. On rejection of the nomination paper, he filed Ext.P2, at the foot of which, the Returning Officer has given an endorsement that the nomination paper was rejected because the certificate evidencing that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste was not produced along with the nomination paper. The petitioner's contention is that Ext.P3 certificate is issued by the Tahsildar on 3.3.2008, i.e., on the date on which the nomination was submitted. He asserts in the writ petition at least twice that Ext.P3 was filed along with the nomination paper. 2. The contention of the petitioner vis.a.vis. the stand taken by the Returning Officer in Ext.P2 raises the disputed question of fact as to whether Ext.P3 was submitted along with the WPC.9324/08 2 nomination paper. I do not deem it appropriate to resolve that dispute in this writ petition. The petitioner has adequate alternate remedy by way of Election Petition, if ultimately he is aggrieved by any result of the election. In the aforesaid circumstance, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take recourse to Election Petition in accordance with law, if so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.