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. 31589 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- AMBIKA GOPALAN,W/O.LATE GOPALAN,AGED 54 MUTHIRAPARAMBU,VECHOOR P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR, SRI.P.H. SHAJI, SRI. TITTO THOMAS, SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. RETURNING OFFICER,G.05,VECHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH & TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICER, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, VAIKOM- 686 001. 2. P.M.SUNDARAN,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN,ARAKKAL HOME,KUDAVELLOR P.O, VAIKOM -686 001. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX,LMS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033,REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 4. VIJU,AGED 33,S/O.VISWAN,VIJU BHAVAN, EDAYASHAM,VECHOOR -686 144. 5. JOSEPH VADAKKEDATH,AGED 37, S/O.ULAHANNAN,VADAKKEDATH,EDAYASHAM, VECHOOR P.O - 686 144. 6. BIJU, AGED 40,S/O.GOPI,CHIRATEE PARAMBU, LEKSHAM VEEDU,EDAYASHAM,VECHOOR P.O - 686 144. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, S.C. 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.31589 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of nomination in Ward No.2 of Vechoor Grama Panchayat. It is pointed out that the nomination was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had attended the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 29.1.2010 and accepted remuneration and at the same time, for a period of 10 days she had availed the benefit under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a disqualification going by Section 34 of the Panchayat Raj Act. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission. 3. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bar under Article 243 O(b) of the Constitution of India will not prevent this Court from examining the validity of the rejection of nomination, I cannot agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the express bar provided under Article 243 O(b). The non obstante W.P.(C)No.31589/10 -2- clause therein really bars the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This legal position is settled by various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court. The issues are covered against the petitioner in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (AIR 1952 SC 64), Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851), Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP(1996(6) SCC 303) and State of UP v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samithi (1995 Suppl.(2) SCC 305). Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge the election after the results are announced, under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Without prejudice to the said remedy, the Writ Petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn