IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30108 of 2009(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.M.SAJEEVAKUMAR @ SAJEEVAN KARAMUKKU, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O.KANDASSAMKADAVU, THRISSUR – 3. BY ADV. SMT.K.NANDINI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4 BY MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMN., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30108 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner states that he is a public spirited person and tries to use the provisions of the Right to Information Act and to further intervene in matters of public interest, to the best of his abilities. With the passage of time, some of the Panchayat members are stated to have turned hostile to him and passed a resolution describing him as a nuisance to the Panchayat. The Human Rights Commission intervened in the matter and forced the Panchayat to withdraw the resolution. The petitioner moved the State Election Commission on the ground that the Panchayat President and the Members have become disqualified by conduct attributable to them. He made Ext.P7. That is more or less in the form of a communication requiring the Commission to take WPC30108/09 -: 2 :- action. The persons against whom specific allegations are to be made are not arrayed in Ext.P7. Having regard to the terms in which Sections 36(3) and 141 of the Panchayat Raj Act are couched, it is inappropriate for this Court to insist that the Commission should entertain all matters which are sent to it even without maintaining a proper format as is required to answer the principles of natural justice and to enter on jurisdiction and adjudication. I say this because, sub-section 3 of Section 36 enjoins that the Code of Civil Procedure shall govern the proceedings before the Commission and Section 141 gives the liberty to the Commission to fix up its own proceedings. All these are intended to ensure that there is a properly constituted lis with the necessary parties on the array and with the necessary pleadings which disclose the cause of action for the institution of the petition. This is all the more important because, the result of disqualification under an order of the State Election Commission has far reaching consequences WPC30108/09 -: 3 :- and the quality of adjudication, including appreciation of evidence, as laid down in the different judgments of this Court, requires the Commission to treat such applications as very serious matters. I say this because, the accusations would be levelled against people who have been elected by a polity. 2.In the light of what is aforesaid, the constitutional court in writ jurisdiction cannot find fault with the communication issued by the Secretary of the Commission in the form of Ext.P8 stating that a properly constituted petition with all necessary ingredients will have to be placed on record for appropriate adjudication. The issuance of such a communication does not also bar the petitioner from placing a proper petition before the Commission with necessary parties on the array and with specific allegations constituting the alleged disqualification and seeking appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. It would be always appropriate that WPC30108/09 -: 4 :- proceedings are held following the provisions contained among the different Orders in Part II of the Code of Civil Procedure and pleadings are regulated by Orders IV to VIII of the CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, without interfering with Ext.P8 decision, this writ petition is ordered directing that the said communication will not stand in the way of the petitioner placing an appropriate application or petition in terms of law before the Commission for relief. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/041109