IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35315 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JINESH GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, ' RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, KAROOR.P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, M.19 PAA MUNICIPALITY & FINANCE OFFICER COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686501. 5. PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM-686575. 6. BETTY SHAJU, THURUTHEL HOUSE KAROOR.P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM-686590. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC FOR R2 BY SRI.V.M.KURIEN, SC FOR R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35315 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the sixth respondent were candidates in the elections recently held to the Pala Municipality. The petitioner objected to the reception of the nomination submitted by the sixth respondent on the ground that the sixth respondent who was elected earlier in the elections held to Pala Municipality in the year 2005 was disqualified by Ex.P2 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission for not complying with the requirements of section 143A of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The Returning Officer overruled the objection raised by the petitioner and received the nomination submitted by the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent was also later elected from Ward -I of Pala Municipality. It appears that even before the elections were held, the sixth respondent had written to the Secretary of the Kerala State Election Commission asking for a clarification as to whether her disqualification by the Kerala State Election Commission by Ext.P2 order would prevent her from contesting in the ensuing elections. The Secretary of the Kerala State Election Commission sent Ext.P6 letter dated 28.9.2010 in reply, stating that the disqualification under Ext.P2 order is only for the term of the council. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 W.P.(C) No.35315 of 2010 2 letter and the stand taken by the Secretary of the Kerala State Election Commission in that letter on the ground that the Kerala State Election Commission has no jurisdiction or authority to hold that the disqualification of the sixth respondent by Ext.P2 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission would come to an end with the cessation of the term for which sixth respondent was elected in the elections held in the year 2005. 2. I am afraid the said question need not be decided by this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner has admittedly filed an election petition before the competent Munsiff's court challenging the election of the sixth respondent. The main contention raised in that election petition is that sixth respondent was disqualified to contest in the elections for the reason that she was earlier disqualified by the Kerala State Election Commission by Ext.P2 order. Necessarily therefore, the question whether the disqualification by Ext.P2 order would prevent the sixth respondent from contesting the elections recently held to Pala Municipality is a question which will have to be decided by the court trying the election petition. The court trying the election petition will have to come to its own decision having regard to the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Act and the W.P.(C) No.35315 of 2010 3 decisions of this Court, if any, governing the field. The court trying the election petition is not certainly bound by the observations and findings in Ext.P6. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to prosecute the election petition and raise the contentions put forward in this writ petition in the election petition. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.