Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5694 Ker
Judgement Date : 18 August, 2025
2025:KER:62090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30761 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K.R. SREEKALA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O GIRISHLAL, RESIDING AT KOPPARA THEZHETHIL,
VILAKKUDY P.O., VILAKKUDY PANCHAYAT,
VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691508
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.PRAMOD S.K.
SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
SMT.ARCHANA P.P.
SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASHA BIJU
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O BIJU MATHEW, RESIDING AT MAROOR,
ELAMPAL P.O., VILAKKUDY PANCHAYAT,
VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691508
2 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,
VIKAS BHAVAN, JANAHITHAM,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.DEEPULAL MOHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30761 of 2025 2
2025:KER:62090
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the
second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.
P3 witness schedule and permit the petitioner to adduce
further evidence.
2.The petitioner is the respondent in OP. No.
13/2024 on the file of the Kerala State Election
Commission ('Commission', for brevity) filed by the first
respondent under Section 3(1)(a) and (4) of the Kerala
Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999,
r/w Rule 4A of the Kerala Local Authorities
(Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 ('Act
and Rules', in short), to disqualify the petitioner as the
member of the Vilakkudy Grama Panchayat and from
contesting as a candidate to any Local self Government
Institution for six years. The petitioner has filed Ext. P2
objection to the original petition on 16.04.2024. The first
respondent has also filed O.P. No. 14/2024 before the
2025:KER:62090 Commission on the very same set of allegations. As the
dispute in the two original petitions arise from the same
election, the Commission consolidated and ordered a
joint trial of the original petitions. Even though the
petitioner had summoned the District Labour Officer,
Punalur, who was the Returning Officer of the Valikkudy
Grama Panchayat, the Officer appeared before the
Commission and submitted that the documents were too
old and could not be traced. In order to corroborate the
petitioner's pleadings, she filed Ext. P3 witness schedule
on 05.08.2025. However, the Commission, without
considering Ext. P3 witness schedule, has posted the
cases for final hearing. The copy application filed by the
petitioner is also not considered. The procedure adopted
by the Commission is illegal, improper and irregular. The
petitioner would be put in severe prejudice if the
witnesses in the schedule are not examined. Hence, the
writ petition.
2025:KER:62090
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the
Commission. In view of the judgment I propose to pass, I
dispense with notice to the first respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, even though Ext. P3 witness schedule was filed on
05.08.2025, the Commission has not rejected or allowed
the schedule. Instead, the Commission has posted the
cases for final hearing. It is highly necessary to examine
the witnesses mentioned in Ext. P3 witness schedule to
substantiate the petitioner's case.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the
Commission handed over the proceedings sheet of O.P.
No. 13/2024 to prove numerous opportunities that were
granted to the petitioner for the trial. According to the
learned Counsel for the Commission, the objections in
the cases were filed as early as on 16.04.2024, and the
cases were posted for trial on 07.07.2024. Subsequently,
on 05.11.2024, the first respondent was examined, and
2025:KER:62090 A1 to A25 were marked on her side. Thereafter, the
other witnesses were examined. Finally, the first
respondent's evidence was closed on 21.01.2025.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to recall
PW8, PW11 and PW12, who were recalled and re-
examined. The first respondent's evidence was closed,
and the cases were posted for the petitioner's evidence
on 29.04.2025. However, the petitioner was absent on
the following two posting dates, i.e., 29.04.2025 and
13.05.2025. Finally, on 01.07.2025, the petitioner filed
the witness schedule, and his evidence was closed on
15.07.2025, and the cases were adjourned to 29.07.2025.
Thereafter, the cases were posted for further evidence as
the last chance on 05.08.2025. On 05.08.2025, the RW2
and RW3 were examined, and the evidence was closed.
The cases were posted to 19.08.2025 for final hearing. It
is at this juncture that Ext. P3 witness schedule was
filed. The petitioner's sole intention is to procrastinate
the final determination of the original petitions. As per
2025:KER:62090 Rule 5(1) of the Rules, the proceedings have to be
completed within 60 days from the date of filing of the
original petition. In fact, the time period to dispose of the
proceedings has lapsed because the original petition was
filed on 20.02.2024. Going by the statutory mandate, the
Commission is bound to dispose of the original petitions
within the stipulated time. There is no merit in the writ
petition.
6. The proceedings narrated above prove that the
trial in the case commenced as on 05.11.2024, that the
petitioner's evidence was closed on 15.07.2025, and it is
after the closure of the trial that the petitioner filed Ext.
P3 witness schedule. Furthermore, Rule 5 of the Rules
mandate that the proceedings have to be completed
within 60 days from its institution.
On an overall consideration of the facts and
materials on record, I am of the firm view that there is
no bona fides or genuineness in the petitioner's filing of
the Ext. P3 witness schedule at the fag end of the
2025:KER:62090 proceedings. I find sufficient force in the contention of
the learned Counsel for the Commission that the
petitioner's oblique intention is only to protract the
proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable
reasons or grounds to exercise the plenary powers of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
direct the Commission to permit the witnesses
mentioned in Ext. P3 witness schedule to be examined.
The writ petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/18.08.25
2025:KER:62090
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30761/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.13/2024 DATED 19/02/2024 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16/04/2024 IN O.P. NO.13/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE DATED 05/08/2025 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER JOINTLY IN O.P. NO.13/2024 AND O.P. NO.14/2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSION Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION DATED 05/08/2025 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER JOINTLY IN O.P. NO.13/2024 AND O.P. NO.14/2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSION
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!