M. Abdul Kareem @ Kunhippa vs The Secretary and The President

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner was a candidate from Ward No. 11 in the election conducted on 26.09.2005 in the Othukkungal Grama Panchayath. The Petitioner defeated in the election and thereafter he filed O.P.(Election) No. 45/2005 before the Munsiff Court, Tirur which was allowed in his favour and the Petitioner was declared elected.

It is submitted that the appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the District Court which was under challenge in C.R.P No. 185/2010. This Court confirmed the orders by Exhibit P1 judgment dated 15.06.2010. The said judgment has been produced by the Petitioner along with the representation dated 03.07.2010 (Exhibit P2) before Respondents 1 and 2. The Petitioner was given a reply that the other contestant is W.P.(C) No. 21443/2010 2 approaching the Apex Court in the matter and therefore, the oath of office cannot be administered to the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that unless there is a communication from the Election Commission, oath of office cannot be administered to the Petitioner, and reliance is placed on Sections 105 and 106 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Sri.T. Krishnanunni submitted that the orders passed by the Munsiff Court as well as the Appellate Court have been communicated in the manner prescribed u/s 105 of the Act. It is also pointed out that it is not the requirement that the Election Commission should issue any direction to the 2nd Respondent or communicate the order passed by the courts below for enabling the 2nd Respondent to administer the oath, which is evident from Exhibit P4 letter issued by the Election Commission. The above argument is supported by the Election Commission also.

A reading of Section 105 of the Act will show that the court shall, after the conclusion of the trial of an election petition, intimate the substance of the order to the State Election Commission and the President of the Panchayath concerned and the requirement is to send an authenticated copy of the order to the Election Commission. Section 106 of the Act provides that the Commission shall cause the order to be published in such a manner as the Commission deems fit. Obviously, the 2nd Respondent cannot drag upon the same to delay the administration of oath.

Evidently, there is no denial of the fact that the order passed by this Court confirming the orders passed by the Munsiff Court as well as the District Court have been produced by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent. The same will amount to a proper communication of the order passed also. Therefore, there is no legal impediment as on today for administering oath to the Petitioner.

It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 21443/2010 4 Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent is waiting for the notification to declare the next election which is denied by the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent.

Whatever that be, the oath of office for the Petitioner will be administered within a period of one week.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.