Kerala High Court
Usha Vijayan vs Kerala State Election Commission on 5 November, 2024
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31465 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
USHA VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
D/O. PADMANABHAN, ADICHUMAKKAL VEEDU, MORCAUD,
KOOVAPALLI P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685590.
BY ADVS. M/S.AMAL KASHA, T.B.HOOD &
M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
2 PROF. M.J. JACOB,
S/O. JOSEPH, MUNDANCKAL HOUSE,KUDAYATHOOR P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685590.
SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC
ADV. SRI.K.C.VINCENT FOR R2.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.31470/2024, THE COURT ON 5.11.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31470 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
USHA VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
D/O. PADMANABHAN, ADICHUMAKKAL VEEDU, MORCAUD,
KOOVAPALLI P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685590.
BY ADVS. M/S.AMAL KASHA, T.B.HOOD &
M.ISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
2 ANJALEENA,
W/O. SIJO, VARAKALLIL, KANJAAR, KUDAYATHOOR P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685590.
SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA
ADV. SRI. K.C.VINCENT FOR R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.31465/2024, THE COURT ON 5.11.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
3
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
===========================================
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
===========================================
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions, filed by the common petitioner, assail the orders
passed by the Kerala State Election Commission (KSEC) allowing the
applications filed by the 2 nd respondent in the writ petitions to declare that
the writ petitioner had committed defection and hence, disqualified to
continue as a member of the Grama Panchayat concerned and also,
disqualifying her from contesting as a candidate in any election to the local
authorities for six years.
2. The parties are described as the petitioner and respondent before
the Election Commission.
3. O.P.No.7/2022 was filed by the 2nd respondent in WP(C). No.
31465/2024 contending that, he was the Idukki District President of the
Kerala Congress. It is stated that the respondent had contested and was
elected as a Member of Ward No.7 of Kudayathoor Grama Panchayat as an
official candidate of Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group) in the symbol
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
'Chenda' during the General Election, 2020. It was the petitioner who
recommended the symbol to the writ petitioner for contesting the election
as a candidate of Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group). It is also stated that,
after the election, the writ petitioner had given a sworn declaration before
the Secretary of the Panchayat showing her as an elected member of Kerala
Congress (P J Joseph Group) based on the same, the Panchayat Secretary had
prepared a register showing the political affiliation of the writ petitioner as
the elected member belonging to the Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group).
Out of the 13 seats in Kudayathoor Grama Panchayat, the UDF constituents,
namely, the Indian National Congress secured 4 seats, and the Indian Union
Muslim League and Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group) secured one each.
4. The Left Democratic Front (LDF) secured 5 seats and BJP secured
2 seats. Thus, the UDF secured the majority of seats in the Panchayat. After
the election, the presidentship of the Panchayat was allotted to the Kerala
Congress (P J Joseph Group) for the first year and accordingly, the
respondent was elected as the President of the panchayat by the UDF
members. Thereafter, the respondent was directed by the petitioner to
vacate the post of President due to allegations against her and also, as part
of the understanding in the UDF coalition. Since the respondent was
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
reluctant, the UDF Members of the Panchayat moved a no-confidence
motion against her, which was scheduled on 2.4.2022. The petitioner, in his
capacity as the District President of the Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group),
issued a written direction by way of a whip to the respondent on 25.3.2022
to attend the meeting and to cast her valid vote in favour of the no
confidence motion against her. As the whip directly served on her was
refused to be accepted, the whip was served by registered post in the official
and residential addresses of the respondent and also, to the Secretary to the
Panchayat. However, the respondent, acting against the direction, abstained
from attending the meeting of no confidence motion held on 2.4.2022 and
thereby, violated the valid direction issued by her political party. Because of
the non participation, the no confidence motion moved by the UDF was
defeated and the respondent was defeated with the support of the LDF
members. On the basis of the above pleadings, that, the respondent
intentionally defied the whip and had voluntarily abandoned her
membership in the political party that fielded her as a candidate, the
petitioner alleged defection under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition
of Defection) Act, 1999.
5. The respondent (writ petitioner) contended that she never violated
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
the directions of the political party nor voluntarily gave up her membership
to which she belonged. It was stated that she was expelled from the political
party to which she belonged and for that reason, no whip is binding on her.
It was admitted that she was elected as the President of the Panchayat in
pursuance of the decision taken by the UDF, but the understanding that she
would step down after one year was denied. It was alleged that the
petitioner was not competent to issue any direction to the UDF members of
the Panchayat and that, the whip dated 25.3.2022 was not served on her. It is
also contended that she could not participate in the meeting to consider the
no confidence motion held on 2.4.2022 since she was admitted to the
hospital and the absence was not willful.
6. The State Election Commission, after considering the oral evidence
of PW1, PW2 and RW1 and also, Exhibits A1 to A9 and X1 and X2, found that
the writ petitioner was aware of the decision taken by the Kerala Congress
(P J Joseph Group) but failed to act in accordance with the political directive
and acted hand in glove with LDF members to defeat the no confidence
motion moved by UDF coalition in which she was a member, thus attracting
defection under section 3(1) of the Act and on that finding, the Original
Petition was allowed and the writ petitioner was declared as disqualified.
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
7. O.P.No. 3/2022 was filed by a Member of the Kudayathoor Grama
Panchayat on almost similar allegations contending that the writ petitioner,
based on the facts set out in the connected writ petition, voluntarily
abandoned membership from the Kerala Congress (M) P J Joseph Group and
had joined CPI(M) while holding the post of President as being part of the
UDF coalition. It was alleged that the whip issued to the writ petitioner was
defied and the respondent had committed defection liable to be disqualified
under the Act. The KSEC found that the petitioner could not prove that the
respondent had withdrawn from the Kerala Congress (M) P J Joseph Group
and joined the CPI(M). However, it was found that, by her conduct, the
respondent had defied the political party directives and as such she should
be deemed to have abandoned her membership in the political party. As it
was found from the evidence on record that the respondent was aware of
the direction issued by Kerala Congress (M) P J Joseph Group but failed to
act in accordance with the same and still held on the position of the
President of the Panchayat with the support of the rival LDF coalition,
which was nothing but disloyalty attracting disqualification under Section
3(1) of the Act.
8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri.T.B.Hood,
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
challenging the orders passed by the KSEC contends that the very case put
up by the writ petitioner, more particularly, in O.P.No. 7/2022, that, there
was an understanding that the writ petitioner would step down after one
year, was never proved. It was also urged that the whip issued by the
President did not have the backing of the political party and despite such
plea raised before the Commission, no documents were produced to show
the decision. It was also stated that the reason for not attending the meeting
was her hospitalisation. Though specific questions were put to the District
Congress President about the decision, which was the main contention in
the objections filed, the lack of production of the same would cut at the root
of the case of the petitioners alleging defection. The minutes of the meeting
which decided to give a one-year tenure to the President were not produced
nor was the decision of the party that required the petitioner to step down,
following which the whip was issued, produced. Despite specific pleadings
and specific questions in examination, nothing was produced and nobody
other than the President, the petitioner in O.P.No.7/2022, was examined.
Thus, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that,
under such circumstances, there is no warrant for the KSEC to hold that
there was an agreement that would prove the party's decision based on
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
which the whip was issued. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there
was nothing to hold that there was defection much less any voluntary
abandonment of the party membership. It is also argued by Sri.T.B.Hood
that, the cause of action alleged in both the petitions are different and the
case of the petitioner in O.P.No.3/2022, that the writ petitioner had defected
and joined the LDF, was specifically found against. Sri. T. B. Hood cited the
decisions in Sandeep M. T. and Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission and
Ors. [2015 (5) KHC 133], Jomon K.M. v. Kerala State Election Commission,
Thiruvananthapuram [2021 KHC 3056] and Praveena Ravikumarv. State
Election Commission [2024 (2) KHC 184].
9. Opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner, Sri.K.C.Vincent, appearing for the 2 nd respondent (petitioner
before the KSEC) contended that the whip had to be issued in terms of
Rule 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected
Members) Rules, 2000, and the only requirement is that the whip should be
issued in the letterhead of the party with the seal by the President. There
was no dispute that the petitioner before the Election Commission was the
President of the party and there was no dispute that the writ petitioner
belonged to the Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group). The authority of a
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
person to issue a whip is thus admitted. The further contention of the writ
petitioner, that the whip was issued without a party backing, cannot be
accepted. It is his submission that it is the party which intimated the writ
petitioner to step down after the expiry of one year which was not acceded,
and which forced the party to issue a whip, which was admittedly defied.
It is the decision of the party that was relevant which was communicated
through the President in the manner prescribed in the Rules. It is also
pointed out that the writ petitioner never had a consistent case, as she had
stated in her objection that she was already expelled from the party and
therefore, the whip was not binding on her. At the same breath, the writ
petitioner contended that she was hospitalized and therefore, she could not
attend the meeting. The conduct of the writ petitioner clearly revealed a
shifting of loyalties so as to continue to hold the post of President against
the decision of the party and the UDF coalition. These facts were more than
enough to attract disqualification under the provisions of the Act.
Sri. K.C. Vincent cited the decision in Varghese K. V. @ Thankachan
Kanjirakkakttu v. State Election Commission and Anr. [2020 KHC 841].
10. The learned counsel for the State Election Commission, Sri. Deepu
Lal Mohan argued that the contention of the writ petitioner, that the whip
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
issued by the President did not have the backing of the political party,
cannot be accepted and the same should be treated as deemed going by the
provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the Act and the Rules have
undergone several amendments and the earlier requirements were
dispensed with and the position now stands is clear from Rule 4. That, the
whip has been issued in terms of Rule 4 cannot be disputed. It was served on
the writ petitioner and the Secretary of the Panchayat. There is also no
dispute that the writ petitioner belonged to the Kerala Congress M
(P J Joseph Group) and that, it was on the basis of the decision of the UDF
Coalition that she became the President.
11. Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan also argued that the writ petitioner was
bound by any directions of the political party and not just the reason for the
issuance of the whip. Under such circumstances, there is no merit at all in
the contention of the writ petitioner and the same is only to be rejected.
The facts clearly reveal a case of shifting of loyalties which has been rightly
found by the State Election Commission and therefore, prayed for the
dismissal of the writ petition. Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan cited the decision in
Shameena Ibrahimkutty and Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission and
Anr. [2020 (6) KHC 354] and Rama Bhaskaran v. Kerala State Election
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
Commission [2018 (2) KLT 600].
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on
the judgment in Jomon K.M. v. Kerala State Election Commission,
Thiruvananthapuram [2021 KHC 3056], that, in the absence of any finding
that the whip was served on the Secretary of the local body, there cannot be
a valid service of a whip. In the facts of the case, the service of the whip is
proved and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the judgment in Jomon,
which was a case where the receipt of the whip was disputed and there was
nothing to show that any decision was taken which was known to the party
therein. In the present case, there is proof of valid service of the whip and
before that, an intimation was sent to the petitioner asking her to step down
after a year. Likewise, the decision in Praveena Ravikumar v. State Election
Commission [2024 (2) KHC 184] was relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for contending that, the deeming fiction provided under
Section 3(3) of the Act is only regarding the authority of a person who can
issue a whip and that the same cannot be questioned and the same cannot
be a proof to show that what was communicated through the whip was the
decision of the party.
13. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment in Sandeep M.T.
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
and Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. [2015 (5) KHC 133]
to say that, there must be evidence to indicate the decision of the party.
These two contentions cannot be accepted given the express provision in
Rule 4 which speaks of how a whip is to be served. The further enquiry, as to
whether the whip served by the person authorised to issue the direction had
the backing of the party, cannot be the subject matter of a dispute before
the Election Commission. There is no dispute in this case that the whip was
issued by the President who was authorised and that, it was validly served
with the seal in the letterhead of the party which is sufficient compliance
with the statutory provisions. Under such circumstances, there cannot be
any additional burden placed on the person who is authorised to serve a
whip to show that the whip was based on the decision of the party as the
same is outside the scope of an election dispute. That apart, if it is the
petitioner's case that all the members did not support the issuance of the
whip, that was the matter the petitioner could have proved by adducing
evidence, to prove his contention that the whip lacked the backing of the
party concerned. I do not find any proposition in the judgments in Sandeep
M.T. or Praveena Ravikumar. that lends support to the arguments of the
petitioner.
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
14. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent,
Sri.K.C.Vincent, relying on the judgment of this Court in Varghese K.V.
submits that the Act was brought to check defection so as to prevent erosion
of values in a democracy. If a member chooses to withdraw from the
political party, he in turn betrays the people who elected him. The conduct
of a member of a political party in relation to the affairs of the local
authority alone has to be considered for disqualification under the
Prohibition Act. If a member of a political party defies any political
directives in relation to the affairs of the local body, that amounts to
voluntarily giving up membership of such political party. In that case, it was
found that the refusal to step down from the post of President inspite of the
direction given by the President of her own party, was nothing but
voluntarily giving up membership of the party. It is submitted that the facts
of the present case are similar to the one in Varghese K. V.'s case. He also
relies on the judgment in Rama Bhaskaran to contend that, the conduct of a
member of a political party, in acting against the interest of the coalition of
which his political party is an integral component, tantamount to
voluntarily giving up of membership of his political party. It is his
submission that, in the light of the admitted facts that she was a member of
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
the Kerala Congress M (P J Joseph Group) and that, she had defied the whip
as well as the direction given by her party, the findings in the impugned
order are only to be confirmed.
15. The learned Counsel for the State Election Commission, Sri. Deepu
Lal Mohan argued on the basis of the amendments made and contended that
Rule 4 as it stands was the culmination of a series of amendments. Rule 4
was amended thrice in 2001, 2005 and 2014 as per SRO No. 209/2001 dated
1.3.2001, SRO No. 913/2005 dated 30.9.2005 and SRO No. 458/2014 dated
6.8.2014 respectively. The argument of the writ petitioner in the instant
case, that, the whip issued is not supported by the decision of the party,
could have been accepted on the basis of the provision before substitution.
Rule 4 Clause (i), prior to the substitution as per SRO No. 158/2000 dated
22.2.2000, reads as under:
(i) in the case of a member belonging to a political party or a member
considered as included therein, it shall be the person authorized from time to
time to recommend the symbol belonging to the political party in order to
contest the said member in the election. Provided, the above said direction
shall be in the letter head and seal of the political party and for the
information of the members, the contents therein shall be read over by the
member who shall be elected by the members belonging to the political party
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
and the members considered as included in the political party jointly, based
on majority from among themselves, and the direction so read shall be
deemed to have given directly to the members. In any case, in the absence of
the member elected by majority or if that member refuses, another member
belonging to the same party shall read over the said direction.
16. The contention of the writ petitioner that there must be proof that
the party has taken a decision, based on which the President issued the
whip, was a position based on the provisions before amendment and the
same having been consciously removed/modified, such contentions cannot
be accepted at all. It is also argued, based on the Local Authorities Election
Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2017 (for short 'Order 2017'),
that the symbol given in the instant case was traceable to the power
conferred therein on the Commission in the case of splinter groups, as
stated in para 10. He argues that, in the instant case, there is no dispute that
the writ petitioner did contest with the 'CHENDA' symbol allotted by the
Kerala Congress M (P J Joseph Group). Under such circumstances, defying
the whip given by the President of the said party and also, defying the
direction constituted "defection" under Section 3 of the Prohibition Act, the
findings of the Commission are only to be upheld.
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
17. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, few undisputed
facts emerged that the writ petitioner had contested the election in the
symbol 'Chenda' allotted to the Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group). It is not
in dispute that the writ petitioner contested the election as a member of the
Kerala Congress (P J Joseph Group). It is also not disputed that after the
election, the writ petitioner had declared her political affiliation which was
acted upon in the statutory declaration form. Thus, there cannot be any
dispute that the writ petitioner had contested and was part of the Kerala
Congress (P J Joseph Group) which in turn was a part of the UDF coalition.
It was the UDF coalition that elected the writ petitioner as the President
which is also not disputed. The decision of the party was communicated to
the writ petitioner which was not adhered to, and which resulted in the
issuance of a whip and the moving of no confidence motion. That, the writ
petitioner did not participate in the no confidence motion is not disputed.
Based on the above undisputed facts, the contentions of the writ petitioner
have to be analysed.
18. The defence of the writ petitioner in the counter filed before the
Election Commission shows that the writ petitioner was already expelled
from the party and therefore, not bound by the whip. It is also contended
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
that she could not participate in the meeting as she was hospitalized. It is
further contended that she had not done any acts which led to defection.
However, the fact remains that, despite the direction given by the political
party of which she was a member, which directed her to step down, she did
not, and had violated the direction of the party as well as the whip, and
continued to hold the post of President.
19. As rightly found by the Election Commission, the evidence of the
President clearly shows that there was a direction taken by the party and it
was intimated to the writ petitioner. As held by this Court, in the decision
reported in Eruthavoor Chandran and Another v. Kerala State Election
Commission [2018 (5) KHC 964], the failure of a member of a political party
to act in accordance with the political directives amounts to voluntarily
abandoning membership of the political party attracting defection. The said
position was again relied on by this Court in Varghese's case which held that
a candidate of a political party elected to a statutory institution shall always
bear in mind that his political activities vis-a-vis his functions in the
institution are regulated and guided by the laws of his party also, and his
continuance as a member depends upon his continued unflinching loyalty
to his party. Based on the admitted facts obtained in the case, the only
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
conclusion possible is that the respondent had defied the directives of the
political party and the whip and must be deemed to have abandoned her
membership of the party.
20. As regards the contention of Sri.T.B.Hood, that, the judgment of
the Division Bench in W.A.Nos. 2050 of 2023 and 2067 of 2023 (Mathew
Joseph v. Joseph John and Ors.) was not correctly decided, as the finding in
the said judgment that the Kerala Congress M (P J Joseph Group) has to be
recognised as a political party for the limited purpose of contesting in an
election is wrong, cannot be accepted, particularly, in view of paragraph No.
10 of the Order 2017, which enables such an exercise. The very purpose of
anti-defection law is to prevent switching over from one party to another or
switching over allegiance by betraying the mandate of the electorate.
The provisions will have to be interpreted keeping the same in mind.
21. The specific case of the writ petitioner was that the whip did not
have the backing of the political party and despite several questions put to
PW2, the decision of the party was not produced cannot be accepted in view
of the findings above. Since the petitioner admits that he had been
intimated about the decision of the party to resign, it must be treated as a
political directive binding on him. Further, a decision of the party or the
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
agreement requiring to step down will not be made between the members.
It is the direction of a party that is to be followed. In the instant case, the
decision of the party was duly communicated in the manner stated in
Rule 4. The whip issued to the party was also duly served. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the Election Commission, no defence for
absence is permissible to be considered by the Election Commission going
by the judgment of this Court in Shameena Ibrahimkutty and Ors. v. Kerala
State Election Commission and Anr. [2020 (6) KHC 364]. The fact that whips
remained unclaimed also must be treated as service given the judgment of
this Court in Praveena Ravikumar's case. The contention of the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner, that the deeming provision is not applicable
for a dispute between the members elected and the person who gave the
whip, also cannot be accepted. The further argument, that the party in the
instant case is not a registered political party, also cannot be accepted.
It has to be noticed that the legislative intent in the provisions noticed
above is to give credence and also, finality to the actions required to be
taken under the Act, namely, for issuance of a whip and the deeming
provisions are also meant for the same.
22. It is trite that when there is a direction issued by the political party
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
to step down, and if it is not obeyed, that would attract the first limb of
Section 3(1)(a) relating to voluntary giving up of membership. This Court in
Faisal v. Abdul Ahmed [2008 (3) KHC 267] held that the refusal to step down
from presidentship would amount to voluntary abandonment of his party
membership. It is also to be noticed that, the Election Commission cannot
enter upon a finding whether the absence of the petitioner in the meeting
was for valid reasons or not. The Election Commission is only to consider
whether the members acted against the interest of the political party or not.
Any direction issued by the political party is not condoned by that party,
that would attract the first limb of Section 3(1)(a).
23. None of the grounds raised warrant interference with the order
impugned in the writ petitions. Given the above, it has to be held that there
is no infirmity let alone any legality in the orders of the Election
Commission to be interfered with in a judicial review.
The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
MMG
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.31465/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO. 7/2022 (WITHOUT DOCUMENTS)
FILED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN O.P. NO.
7/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.09.2022 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.7 /2022 BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.7/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ON 03.11.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY
SRI.P.G.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, SECRETARY OF
KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION IN O.P.NO.7/2022
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.10.2023 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.7/2022 BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.7/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ON 08.02.2024
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY
THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION IN
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.04.2022
ISSUED BY THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
HOSPITAL
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY THE LETTER DATED 02.04.2022 GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYAT,
ELAMDESAM
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT MEETING HELD ON 02.04.2022 TO DISCUSS
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.9/2024/SEC ISSUED
BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA ON
03.02.2024 AND PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY DATED 05.02.2024
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JOSEPH JOHN
(DEEPAK) V. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPORTED IN 2023 (6) KLT 434
EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2050
AND 2067 OF 2023 DATED 29.07.2024.
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.31470/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO. 3/2022 (WITHOUT DOCUMENTS)
FILED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
DATED 19.02.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN O.P. NO.
3/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.10.2022 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.3/2022 BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER IN O.P.NO.3/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ON 11.10.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY
SRI.M.J.JACOB, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, KERALA
CONGRESS, IDUKKI BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION IN O.P.NO.3/2022 ON 03.11.2022
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY
SRI.P.G.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, SECRETARY OF
KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION IN O.P.NO.3/2022 ON
29.11.2022
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.10.2023 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.3/2022 BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT IN O.P.NO.3/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ON 08.02.2024
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY
THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA IN
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.9/2024/SEC ISSUED
BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA ON
2024:KER:81920
W. P. (C) Nos. 31465 & 31470 of 2024
03.02.2024 AND PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY DATED 05.02.2024
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JOSEPH JOHN
(DEEPAK) V. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPORTED IN 2023 (6) KLT 434
EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2050
AND 2067 OF 2023 DATED 29.07.2024.
