IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31171 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RATHNAKUMAR N.KUZHIVILATHOTTATHU BUNGLOW, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM(P.O),PIN-695125, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER & THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE RETURNING OFFICE TO THE ELECTION TO OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER & SECRETARY OF OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM (P.O),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, S.C, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31171 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein had submitted two sets nominations for contesting as a candidate for one of the Wards in Ottasekharamangalam Panchayat. Her nominations were accepted as valid. Out of the two sets of nomination papers, the petitioner withdrew one set of nomination paper. It is pointed out that, surprisingly, when the notice was issued, her candidature itself was shown as wrong. It is in these circumstances, that she has approached this Court, by filing this Writ Petition. 2. Respondents have filed detailed counter affidavit. Mainly it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission that in the light of Article 243 O(b) of the Constitution, this Court cannot entertain this Writ Petition and accordingly, the remedy of the petitioner is only to file an election petition. Reliance is placed on various decisions of the Apex Court, namely N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952 SC 64) and other cases. So many aspects have been pointed out to justify the action of the Returning Officer also. I am not going W.P.(C)No. 31171/10 -2- into the merits of the contention, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mala fides is writ large in the proceedings as she was really a candidate eligible to contest the election. 3. Evidently, in the light of the bar of Article 243 O(b) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can only move the Munsiff's Court, by filing an election petition after the election is over. The jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is well settled that this Court cannot interfere with any matter which may tamper with the process of the election. This Court can only issue a direction to smoothen the process of the election. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade me to direct inclusion of her name in the list of candidates, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, it may not be proper for this Court to issue such directions. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to file an election petition, after the election is over. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn