IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2244 of 2007(P) ------------------------- OP.6/2005 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ N.RAVINDRAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANAN THAMPI, POORATHIL THEKKETHIL, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR SRI.SAJIKUMAR.K.K. SMT.DIVYA C BALAN SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.DAISY J. DANIEL SMT.SWAPANA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. GOPAKUMAR RAJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.HARI DHATHAN, PURATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH PO, KOCHI. 2. RAJAGOPALAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN NAIR, LAKSHMI VILASOM, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH PO. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2244/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE IMPUGNED INTERIM JUDGMENT DT. 16.12.06 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2;- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW 7. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW8. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW9. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW10. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.2244 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Prl.Munsiff, Ernakulam in Election O.P.No.6 of 2005. The learned Munsiff had written a very detailed order in order to find out whether the electronic machines and ballot papers along with the signatures by the voters at the time of voting are liable to be examined by the court. It has been held by this Court that in order to maintain the secrecy of the ballot paper, the Court shall not for flimsy reasons open the ballot papers to find out who all had exercised their franchise. This Court held that when a case of double voting arises for consideration before an Election Tribunal, the Court has to satisfy that the name of the persons, who are alleged to have cast votes on two Constituencies the name should find place in the voters' list of both places. Then there must be identification of those persons and lastly they had exercised their votes in both the constituencies. The court held that only on a prima facie satisfaction of the materials the next procedure can be adopted either to summons the ballot papers or as in this case the electronic Wp(C)2244/2007 -:2:- machines. So the elaborate discussion done by the Munsiff has to be understood in the sense that the said exercise is done by the learned Munsiff in order to prima facie satisfy himself about the need to examine the electronic machines. When a matter is prima facie considered only the superficial ingredients are looked into and when the matter is really heard the substantial questions and the analysis of the evidence have to be done in the letter and spirit where it is available. Further, it has to be held that in this particular case there is a question of law mooted that it will never amount to double voting even if a person had exercised his franchise in two places, one relates to a Panchayat and the other relates to a Municipality. That is also a question of law which the Court has to consider and decide. This writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the finding of the learned Munsiff only relates to a prima facie satisfaction for the purpose of directing the electronic machines to be brought for the purpose of finding out whether the persons had exercised double voting. When that is over and the election matter is proceeded further with, I make it clear that the court has to deal each and every point of the matter including the evidence and decide the matter finally after hearing both parties. Being an old matter, Wp(C)2244/2007 -:3:- the court shall try to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-