IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24949 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHERUPURAKKAL GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, PACHATTIRI POST, TIRUR-5, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI(SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, VETTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST VETTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24949/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 28.6.2008, passed by the first respondent disqualifying the petitioner on the ground of his failure in submitting accounts of election expenses, as required under Section 86 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Petitioner contends that, Ext.P1 order of the first respondent enclosing the list of the candidates disqualified for non compliance of Section 86 is illegal. The contention raised is that, the said order was passed without issuing any notice or conducting enquiry. In view of the submission made as above, when the writ petition came up for admission on 19/8/2008, it was adjourned with a direction to the first respondent to file a statement answering the aforesaid contention. WP(c).No.24949/2008 2 2. Accordingly, a statement has been filed which shows that the petitioner was elected in the election held on 27.9.2005, from ward No.IV of Vettom Grama Panchayat and Annexure-A is the list of contesting candidates from the ward which shows that apart from the petitioner there was another candidate. In terms of Section 86, within 30 days, the candidate is to file a statement of election expenses before the authorised officer and the Secretary of the respective Block Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the Grama Panchayat is situated, is the officer authorised by the first respondent in this behalf. The statement shows that the Secretary of the Block Panchayat, Tirur was the authorised officer. 3. The authorised officer submitted Annexure-B report in terms of Rule 59 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj(Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 which disclosed that, of the two candidates, while the unsuccessful candidate, filed his statement, the petitioner, the successful candidate, did not file the statement as required under Section 86. On receipt WP(c).No.24949/2008 3 of the report as above, Annexure-C show cause notice was issued by the first respondent on 20.2.2007 and receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner in Annexure-D acknowledgment card and his signature carries date 17.3.2007. It is stated that, even after the receipt of Annexure-C show cause notice, petitioner did not respond to the notice nor did he submit the statement of election accounts directly to the Commission. In the meanwhile, a general notice was also given as per Annexure-G. Despite all this, the petitioner did not submit his explanation or the statement as required and in these circumstances the Election commission passed annexure-G order dated 28.6.2008 disqualifying the candidates who did not comply with the requirements of Section 86 which included the petitioner also. 4. It is stated that out of 60307 candidates who contested the general election held in 2005 to the local bodies, 8984 candidates failed to submit accounts of election expenses and were disqualified. It is also stated WP(c).No.24949/2008 4 that the vacancy consequent on the disqualification of the petitioner was reported to the first respondent by Annexure- H and that steps for bye-election has already been initiated by the first respondent. 5. From the above statement, the correctness of which cannot be disputed, it is evident that show cause notice was given to the petitioner and he had an opportunity to file his objections and contest the matter. But however, the petitioner did not avail of the same. Therefore the ground raised in the writ petition that Ext.P1 order was passed without issuing notice or conducting an enquiry is factually erroneous. For that reason, writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.24949/2008 5