Kerala High Court
Sanitha Saji vs Soumya Anil on 2 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 269 OF 2024
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.1177 OF 2024)
APPELLANT:
SANITHA SAJI
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. SAJI, EEZHARATTU VEEDU, WARD NO. XIV,
MANNAMKALA, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 686561
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SHRI.ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM
RESPONDENT:
1 SOUMYA ANIL
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ANIL, THATTAYATHUKUDI,
VALARA P.O., CHILLITHODE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -
685561
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA(R2)
W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
: 2 :-
2025:KER:48665
ADV.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM (R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.272/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
: 3 :-
2025:KER:48665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 272 OF 2024
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.1141 OF 2024)
APPELLANT:
SANITHA SAJI
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. SAJI, EEZHARATTU VEEDU, WARD NO. XIV,
MANNAMKALA, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SHRI.ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 SALIMKUMAR
S/O. THANKAPPAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLAMATTAM,
THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
: 4 :-
2025:KER:48665
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA (R2)
ADV.ASWIN SANKAR (R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.269/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
: 5 :-
2025:KER:48665
AMIT RAWAL,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------.
W.A Nos. 269 & 272 of 2024
---------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J Writ Appeal No.269/2024 arises out of the judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.1177/2024 and W.A.No.272/2024 arises out of the judgment dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.(C) No.1141/2024.
2. Both these writ appeals have been filed by the writ petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dismissing her writ petitions.
3. The writ petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Kerala State Election Commission condoning the delay of 260 days in filing O.P.No.18/2023 and 252 days in filing O.P.No.19/2023, which were filed seeking disqualification of the W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 6 :-
2025:KER:48665 writ petitioner. O.P.No.18/2023 is filed by the first respondent in W.A.No.269/2024 and O.P.No.19/2023 filed by the first respondent in W.A.No.272/2024.
4. The reasons stated in the petitions for condoning the delay in brief are as follows:
One Sri.C.D.Shaji, Ward No. 3 and Sherly Mathew, Ward No.15 had filed petitions before the Commission against the writ petitioner as O.P. Nos.11/2022 and 12/2022, on the very same grounds now raised. Both the petitioners in that case are members of LDF/ CPI(M). Petitioners herein are members of LDF/CPI and the petitioner in O.P.No.18/2023 is also a member of the Panchayat. The CPI party had handed over all the records to C.D.Shaji and Sherly Mathew. In O.P.No.11/2022 and 12/2022, the examination of the witnesses and marking of documents were done. The petitioners herein did not file similar petitions before the Election Commission, only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. But, the petitioners in O.P. W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 7 :-
2025:KER:48665 Nos.11/2022 and 12/2022 withdrew their original petitions against the writ petitioner. It caused damage and hardship to CPI party and the petitioners herein. Hence, the original petitions came to be filed with the delay.
5. The State Election Commission vide order dated 21.09.2023 allowed the delay condonation petitions. The said orders were challenged by filing the afore writ petitions. As stated earlier, both these writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Heard Adv.Liji J Vadakkedom, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.Pramoj Abraham learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Adv.Deepu Lal Mohan learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the respective O.Ps. He submitted that the reason stated by the petitioners in the O.Ps that, they had filed the O.Ps only when W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 8 :-
2025:KER:48665 the two O.Ps which were already pending before the Election Commission were withdrawn, is not at all a sufficient cause to condone the delay. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024 KHC 6674) to contend that no event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. They argued that while condoning the delay, a pragmatic and liberal approach has to be adopted by the courts and it must be kept in mind that merits which have to be examined in the matter, cannot be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.
9. The only question that arises for consideration in these writ appeals is whether the petitioners in the Election O.Ps. have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is stated by the W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 9 :-
2025:KER:48665 petitioners in the present Election O.P. that two other O.Ps. i.e.; O.P.Nos.11/2022 and 12/2022 were filed seeking disqualification of the writ petitioner on the very same grounds now raised, by two persons affiliated to the Left Democratic Front and that all the relevant records were handed over to them by the CPI party, to which the petitioners in the present Election O.Ps. are affiliated. It is also stated that for reasons best known, O.P. No.11/2022 and O.P.No.12/2022 were withdrawn, thereby causing considerable hardship to the party and its members and hence, they were constrained to file the present Election O.Ps., with the delay.
10. The Apex Court in the decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], while summarising the principles applicable while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, has held that there is a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration and for the former, the doctrine of prejudice will be attracted and W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 10 :-
2025:KER:48665 for the latter, it may not be attracted. It was also held that the former will warrant a strict approach and the latter a liberal approach. In the decision in Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 600], the Apex Court has held that while condoning the delay a major aspect which is to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. Similarly, in the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 2151], the Apex Court has observed thus:
"22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 11 :-
2025:KER:48665 for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning."
In the present case, there is no inordinate delay in filing the original petitions, in order to attract the doctrine of prejudice and therefore, only a liberal approach is called for. The reasons stated by the petitioners in the Election O.Ps for condoning the delay shows that they are very valid and genuine for not filing the O.P. within time. The Election Petitions have been filed seeking to disqualify the writ petitioner on her alleged act of defection, which, if true, has very serious implications on the democratic society. As held by the Apex Court, when consideration of a matter on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of limitation, the W.A.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 : 12 :-
2025:KER:48665 courts can definitely lean towards consideration of merits by adopting a liberal approach towards "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. The decision in Ramkumar Choudhary's case (cited supra) relied on by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the delay in that case was inordinate i.e., more than five years thereby attracting the doctrine of prejudice and also for the reason that the petitioners in this election OP's have shown sufficient cause for not filing the petitions, even before and after the expiry of the period of limitation. In such circumstances, we find that there is no merit in these writ appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL Judge Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN Judge dpk