IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3296 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2011 IN IA.1893/2011 IN ELECTION OP.35/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------- VISWANATHAN, S/O.THEETHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A.NENMENI P.O.,THEKKINCHIRA, KOLLENGODE NO.I.VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, S/O.KARUPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NENMENI P.O.,EDDACHIRA,NEELIPARAMBU HOUSE, KOLLENGODE NO.I VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK-678101. 2. PRASADHAN,S/O.CHAMY, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NENMENI P.O., THEKKINCHIRA, PALAKKODE, KOLLENGODE NO.1.VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK - 678101. 3. ARUCHAMY, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT .NENMENI P.O.,BANGLAWMEDU, KANDANCHIRA,KOLLENGODE NO.I.VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK-678 101. 4. RADHALAKSHMY, RETURNING OFFICER, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, KOLLENGODE, PUDUNAGARAM-678 001. 5. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, (DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD) -678 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.3296/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION ORIGINAL PETITION NO.35/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION PETITION. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1893/2011 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR IN IA 1893/2011. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6/9/2011 IN IA.1893/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT CHITTUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3296 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T First respondent in O.P(El.) No.35 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur is the petitioner, aggrieved by P5, order directing that signatures and thump impressions of three voters who are alleged to have engaged in double voting be sent to the appropriate Expert for opinion notwithstanding that those persons had tendered evidence that they had not engaged in double voting. Petitioner is aggrieved by two things – that in spite of the evidence given by the witnesses concerned that they have not engaged in double voting, learned Munsiff has ordered that their signatures and thump impressions be compared by the Expert and, secondly, at any rate the comparison must have been made by a Government Agency to ensure transparency and not by a private agency. 2. So far as the first limb of the argument is concerned notwithstanding the denial made by the persons allegedly engaged in double voting learned Munsiff has to consider whether the version of those persons is correct or not and in O.P(C) No.3296 of 2011 -: 2 :- deciding that, opinion of the Expert on the disputed thump impressions/signature was relevant for a decision. There is nothing illegal in it. 3. So far as the second limb of argument is concerned I cannot accept the argument of learned counsel that there will be no transparency if Expert opinion is obtained from a private agency. Learned Munsiff has stated that if the disputed thump impressions/signatures are send to the Government Agency it involves much time (which has to be excluded in a case of this nature where the election is challenged). Learned Munsiff has also stated that petitioner and the respondent could file panel of Experts so that a suitable person could be selected from the panel so submitted. I must also bear in mind that petitioner is entitled to summon the Expert in the course of trial and show that his opinion is not correct. Hence I do no find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv