IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30133 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHRAF SAINUDHEEN, S/O.SAINUDHEEN, AGED 35 YEARS, KELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA PO, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN-688 524. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. NEAR CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM. 2. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA COLLECTORATE – 688 001 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,CHERTHALA – 688 524 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a resident of Cherthala Municipality has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 28.6.2008 issued by the State Election Commission disqualifying him from contesting the elections to local bodies for a period of five years from that date. The petitioner contends that though he had contested the elections to the Cherthala Municipality in the year 2005, he was not a serious candidate and did not incur any expenditure, and therefore, he bona fide believed that it is not necessary for him to submit a statement of accounts of election expenditure to the State Election Commission. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 10.8.2010 followed by Ext.P4 representation dated 24.9.2010, requesting the State Election Commission to withdraw Ext.P1 order, but no action has been taken thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the State Election Commission. The petitioner contends that before Ext.P1 order was issued, he was not put on notice or heard. 2. A statement dated 1.10.2010 has filed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. It is W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2010 2 stated in paragraph 6 thereof that the petitioner and another candidate by name Sri.Thomas Kunnumpurm did not submit accounts of election expenses within the stipulated time or even thereafter, that the District Election Officer who is the authorised officer reported the said fact to the State Election Commission, as per Annexure-A dated 25.4.2006, that thereupon, Annexure-B notice dated 21.11.2006 was issued to the petitioner, that it was received by him on 29.11.2006 and notwithstanding the receipt of the said notice, the petitioner did not respond to it or show cause why he should not be disqualified. It is stated that as the petitioner did not submit the account of election expenditure or explain why he failed to submit the statement of account of election expenditure within time, Annexure-D order dated 28.6.2008 was issued disqualifying him and certain others from contesting elections to the local bodies for a period of five years. It is stated that Annexure-D order was published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 28.6.2008 and that it does not suffer from any infirmity. 3. I heard Sri.K.P.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. Ext.P1 order W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2010 3 which is challenged in this writ petition was passed on 28.6.2008. The petitioner has no case in the writ petition that a copy thereof was not served on him. It has therefore to be necessarily held that the challenge to Ext.P1 is highly belated. Further, the petitioner had admittedly not filed a statement of account of the expenditure incurred by him in the elections. His contention is that he did not incur any expenditure in connection with the election. But the fact remains that he was bound, under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Kerala Municipality (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, to submit a statement of account of election expenditure before the State Election Commission. When he did not do so, the State Election Commission issued Annexure-B notice to submit his accounts. He was also informed that if he does not furnish a statement of accounts, he will be disqualified. Annexure-C acknowledgment card produced along with Annexure-B notice discloses that Annexure-B notice was served on the petitioner. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the signature in Annexure-C is at variance with the signature of the petitioner in the writ petition and the address given in Annexures B and C is also different, I am of the opinion that there is W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2010 4 no merit in the said contentions. In the absence of any case for the petitioner that he was unaware of the order passed on 28.6.2008, nearly two years back, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay alone. Further, even though the petitioner contends that he had secured only 10 votes, it is difficult to believe that as a candidate in the elections to the local bodies held in the year 2005, he did not incur even a single rupee as expenditure in the election. The said plea is unbelievable and does not merit acceptance. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.