K. Muraleedharan vs State Election Commission And Ors

Petitioner is the Chief Election Agent of Sri.Abdul Salam Ravuthar, a candidate contesting the election scheduled to take place on 10.12.2020 to

Vaikom Municipality from Ward No.15. It is stated by the petitioner that in the course of the campaign, the candidate was infected with COVID-19

and consequently he is undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, Kottayam since 28.11.2020. On account of the said reason, it is stated that

the petitioner is now under quarantine. It is also stated by the petitioner that the candidate is not likely to be discharged from the hospital before the

election. As the candidate is unable to campaign for the election, the petitioner submitted Exts.P3 to P5 representations before respondents 1 to 3

seeking orders for adjourning the poll to a date to be notified later, invoking Section 127 of the Kerala Municipality Act (the Act). This writ petition is

filed thereupon alleging that Exts.P3 to P5 representations are not being considered by the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are duty bound under sub section (1) of Section 127 of the Act to adjourn the poll in

a case of this nature and that their inaction to consider the representations preferred by the petitioner is unjustified. The learned counsel has also

pointed out that the petitioner as also the candidate have a right to be present at the polling stations as also at the counting stations in terms of the

provisions of the Act and they are deprived of the said right on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents concerned in acting upon the

representations preferred by the petitioner.

Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act invoked by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking adjournment of the poll, reads thus:

“ If at an election the proceedings at any polling station provided under section 101 for the poll are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open

violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause, the

Presiding Officer for such polling station or the Returning Officer presiding over such place, as the case may be, shall announce an adjournment of the

poll to a date to be notified later, and were the poll is so adjourned by a Presiding Officer, he shall forthwith inform the Returning Officer

concerned.â€​

As explicit from the quoted provision, the provision confers power on the Presiding Officer of a polling station or the Returning Officer presiding over

such place, as the case may be, to adjourn the poll to a date to be notified later, if the proceedings at that polling station are interrupted or obstructed

by any riot or open violence or if it is not possible to take the poll at the polling station on account of any natural calamity or any other sufficient cause.

First of all, the polling in the instant case is yet to take place. Assuming that the power under the said provision can be invoked by the officers

concerned even before the polling, I do not think that the reason, on the basis of which the petitioner has invoked the said power viz, that the candidate

is infected with Covid-19, would fall within the scope of Section 127 of the Act.

Of course, Sections 122 and 133 of the Act confer right on a candidate and his agent to be present at the polling station at the time of polling and at

the counting station at the time of counting of votes. In so far as the inability of the candidate to invoke the said right available to him is not attributable

to the respondents, according to me, the same can never be a reason to seek adjournment of the poll. It is all the more so since there is no enabling

provision in the Act to seek adjournment of the poll on that ground. The case that even the petitioner is not able to attend the polling stations and

counting stations as he is under quarantine, is without any substance as Section 120 of the Act enables the candidate to change his agent at any point

of time.

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.