IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 702 of 2006 --------------------- OPELE.10/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- SATHY DEVI M.P., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, SHANMUKHA VILASOM, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.RAMESH MR.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MARY SHEELA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O.ANTONY, VALAYIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SEENA THANKACHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O.THANKACHAN, KANAYKKAPPALLIYIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. JIJI MOL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS, NADEEPARAMBIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. DOLLY DEVASYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O.DEVASYA, PAYYELIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, EZHUPUNNA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN FOR R1 MR.RAJU V.MATHEW FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.702 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala, dismissing an election petition filed by the revision petitioner challenging the election of the first respondent, the returned candidate, from ward No.1, Ezhupunna Panchayath, Cherthala, holding that the election petition is not maintainable for the reason that the copy of the election petition served on the above respondent was not properly attested and thereby there was noncompliance of the statutory provisions covered by the Panchayath Raj Act. From the facts and circumstances presented as disclosed by the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, it is seen that the election petition O.P.(Ele).No.10 of 2005 was filed by the revision petitioner challenging the election of the first respondent on the ground there was improper reception, refusal or rejection of a vote or reception of any vote which is void and also noncompliance of the provisions of the Act or any of the Rules or Order covered by the C.R.P.No.702 of 2006 2 Panchayath Raj Act and Rules as falling under Section 102(1)(d) (iii) and (iv) of the Panchayath Raj Act, materially affecting the result of the election declaring the first respondent as the returned candidate in the election. Maintainability of the petition was challenged on various grounds by the first respondent among which one ground alone i.e., the copy of the petition that was served on the respondent was not attested on all of its pages, but, only on the last page alone appealed to the learned Munsiff to hold that there was no proper attestation of the copy and so much so, the election petition was not maintainable. The learned Munsiff has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in Kaveri Amma v. Devaki (1996 (2) KLT 189) to conclude that the copy of the election petition served on the respondent should be attested on all pages and if that is not done so, it amounts to flouting of the mandate under Section 89(2) of the Panchayath Raj Act. In taking such a view the learned Munsiff has concluded that the election petition is not maintainable with the result, the petition was dismissed. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. I find the learned Munsiff has not taken note of the C.R.P.No.702 of 2006 3 subsequent decisions rendered by this Court, placing reliance on the early decision of the apex court, striking a different note from the view taken in Kaveri Amma’s case. In Bindu Vijayakumar v. Bindu Rajappan (2003 (1) KLT 155) this Court has distanced from the view taken in Kaveri Amma’s case. Placing reliance on the decision rendered by the apex court in F.A.Sapa v. Sinchora (1991(3) SCC 375) wherein the apex court has held attestation on the last page of the true copy of the election petition served on the respondent would be sufficient to treat it as proper compliance of the statutory requirement of serving of the attested copy of the election petition on the respondent, in the aforesaid decision this Court has observed that the requirements insisted upon Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of Peoples Act are paramateria to the provisions covered under Section 89(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and both are identical. The apex court has considered the question whether the nonsubscribing of the signature of the petitioner on the copy of the election petition, but, only at the end of the copy of the affidavit accompanying that petition would be sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements as to proper attestation. In C.R.P.No.702 of 2006 4 M.Kamalam v. V.A.Syed Mohamad (1978 KLT 349) dilating on that point holding that the attestation must be such to show that it is an authenticated copy, the apex court has observed thus: “The law does not require that the authenticating signature must be made by the petitioner at any particular place in the copy of the election petition. It may be at the top of the copy or in the middle or at the end. The place of the signature is immaterial so long as it appears that it is intended to authenticate the copy. When original signature is made by the petitioner on the copy of the election petition, it can safely be presumed that the signature is made by the petitioner by way of authenticating the document to be a true copy of the election petition. In fact, the copy of the affidavit constituted the end portion of the copy of the election petition and the signature placed by the appellant at the foot of the copy of the affidavit was, therefore, clearly referable to the entire copy preceding it and it authenticated the whole of the copy of the election petition to be a true copy.” When that be the law laid by the apex court with respect to authenticity of the true copy, it goes without saying that the C.R.P.No.702 of 2006 5 authentication made by the petitioner in the copy of the election petition at the end of that petition has to be treated as proper compliance satisfying the requirement covered under Section 89 (2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The order passed by the learned Munsiff in the circumstances cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside, and I do so. Learned Munsiff is directed to restore the election petition to its file and dispose it in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but, after giving reasonable opportunity to lead evidence, at any rate, before the closing of the courts in the mid summer vacation, 2010. Revision is disposed as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-