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
