IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 345 of 2011() --------------------- ELECTION OP.20/2010 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,WADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- K.T.VINOD, S/O.THELLIKKAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY-679 531. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- SIVARAMAN, S/O.KOLAMBAN, VADAKKEDATH PARAMBIL, CHERUTHURUTHY-679 531. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.345 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2011 ORDER This civil revision is in challenge of the order dated 05.07.2011 in O.P(Ele).No.20 of 2010 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Vadakkancherry. Petitioner is the successful candidate. His election was challenged by the defeated candidate, the respondent on various grounds. In short, the allegation made by the respondent is that petitioner published a news bulletin on 25.10.2010 containing wanton allegations against the respondent and that affected his chance in the election. Respondent has stated the details in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the election petition. Petitioner contended that the election petition is not maintainable and requested the learned Munsiff to decide that question as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, learned Munsiff considered the question as a preliminary issue and by order dated July 5, 2011 found that the election petition is maintainable. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that what was contended before the learned Munsiff was lack of material facts in the election petition to sustain a request to set aside the C.R.P.No.345 of 2011 -: 2 :- election of petitioner but that is not considered by the learned Munsiff. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Jayakaran Vs. Balakrishna (2002(3) KLT SN 6 (Page No.4) to contend that a petition for election must contain a concise statement of material facts. 3. Learned counsel for respondent/returned candidate contended that the defect if any to the contends of the petition under Sec.91 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act”) is not a ground entitling petitioner to get a dismissal of the election petition in limine. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sec.93 of the Act and the decision in Lissy Vs. Surendran (2008(4) KLT 354. 4. Though various other contentions were also urged before the learned Munsiff to contend that the election petition is not maintainable and those contentions were found against by the learned Munsiff, those aspects are not challenged before me by the learned counsel for petitioner. The only contention raised is as to the alleged lack of material facts in the election petition to sustain a request to set aside the election of petitioner. 5. Sec.91 of the Act deals with the contends of the election petition and clause (a) of sub sec.(1) states that the C.R.P.No.345 of 2011 -: 3 :- election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which petitioner relies. Clause (b) states that the election petitioner shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. In the decision relied by the learned counsel for petitioner, true that it is stated that the application must contain a concise statement of material facts and that failure of the court to exercise the jurisdiction vested by law by not considering the material issue arising on the preliminary point was interfered. The decision learned counsel for respondent relies goes in tune with Sec.93 of the Act which states that an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Secs.89, 90 or 115 of the Act shall be dismissed. In that decision, learned Judge says that non compliance with the requirements of Sec.91 of the Act is not a ground for in limine dismissal of the election petition. 6. I am concerned with the question whether a concise statement of the facts which respondent relies on is given in the petition. According to the respondent, petitioner published a C.R.P.No.345 of 2011 -: 4 :- news bulletin on 25.10.2010 which contained wanton allegations against the respondent which muffed his chance in the election. Learned counsel for respondent has given me a copy of the election petition and I find that particulars are given in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the election petition. I am not inclined to think that it is a case where the election petition does not contain a concise statement of the material facts on which respondent relies. As such the contention that the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine, cannot be accepted. But, whatever defect the election petition has as the petitioner contend is a matter which petitioner can raise in the course of trial and seek relief accordingly. With the above observation this civil revision is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-