[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sajeevan P vs State Election Commission on 10 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAJEEVAN P
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O DEVADAS (LATE),
LAKSHMINANDANAM,
NEAR SOMASWARI TEMPLE,
PUZHATHI, CHIRAKKAL PO,
KANNUR, PIN - 670001
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SHRI.RENOY VINCENT
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN
SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
SHRI.JITHIN ALEXANDER SUNNY
SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K.
SMT.AYISHA RISWANA
SMT.REJABANA PARVEEN T. R.
SMT.FEMITHA FATHIMA
SMT.ALMIYA AJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION
OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER
CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT KANNUR,
PIN - 670011
5 CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
KANNUR, PIN - 670011
6 THE SECRETARY
CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KANNUR, PIN - 670011
BY ADVS
SMT DEEPA K R, SPL GP
SRI I V PRAMOD, SC
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 4591 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for
the records relating to the election to the
Standing Committee of the Respondent No.5
Panchayat conducted on 05.01.2026 and quash
the same as illegal, arbitrary and void;
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for
the records relating to the election to the post of
Chairman of the Standing Committee of the
Respondent No.5 Panchayat conducted on
08.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and void.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
Respondents to conduct fresh elections to the
Standing Committee of theRespondent No.5
Panchayat, permitting participation only of those
members who have submitted valid nomination
papers before the Respondent No.4 Returning
Officer within the prescribed time, and strictly in
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
accordance with the provisions of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Kerala Panchayat
Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000, Exhibit
P3 and P4 Guidelines issued by the Respondent
No.1 State Election Commission;
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
Respondents to issue a fresh notice under
Section 4(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 and
thereafter conduct fresh election to the post of
Chairman of the Standing Committee.
v. To dispense off with translation of vernacular
documents to English;
vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice; "
[SIC]
2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against
the election conducted to the Standing Committee of the
respondent No.5 Panchayat.
3. According to the petitioner, the Standing
Committee Election is unsustainable and to be interfered by
this Court, because the nomination paper was accepted by an
officer who is not competent. The petitioner relying the
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
judgment of this Court in Beena Kaniyankunnel & Anr. v.
Kerala State Election Commission, [2012 SCC OnLine Ker.
31582] .
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State
Election Commission.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the State
Election Commission raised a preliminary objection about the
maintainability of this writ petition. According to the Standing
Counsel, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative
remedy by filing a suit before the civil court against the
election. In such circumstances, this Court may not entertain
the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the civil suit is not an efficacious remedy and in
this case, the only aspect that is to be looked into is whether
the person who accepted the nomination is a competent person
or not.
7. When an alternative remedy is available to
the petitioner, this Court need not entertain a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court
considered this point in detail after considering the decision of
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
the Apex Court also in Mohankumar K. v. Union or India
[2025(4) KHC 450]. The relevant paragraphs of the same are
extracted hereunder;
"8. This Court in Controller of Examination, Kannur and
another v. Sreya N [2021(5) KHC 537] considered the
scope of interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the orders of the District
Consumer Forum, when the Consumer Protection Act
provides a hierarchy of forums, for the aggrieved
parties to challenge such orders, and when the said Act
is a complete code in itself. Thereafter, in Union Bank of
India v. K.J. Jose and Others [2022 (2) KHC 739], this
court, after referring to Sreya's (supra) case, observed
that, even if a writ petition is admitted long back, this
court need not entertain writ petitions in all cases, only
for the reason that, it is already admitted long back,
when there is an efficacious alternative remedy
available. Relevant portion of the judgment in K.J.Jose
case is extracted hereunder:
"10. This Court considered the judgments
relied by the petitioners to strengthen the
argument raised to the effect that, this Court
can entertain a writ petition even if there is an
alternative remedy available as per the
Consumer Protection Act. There is no dispute
with that proposition. In almost all cases cited
by the petitioners, it is stated that it is the
discretion of this Court to decide whether or
not to entertain such petition and the normal
rule is not to entertain because the Consumer
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
Protection Act is a complete code in which
there is a hierarchy of forums to challenge
orders.
11. Moreover in Controller of Examination's
case (supra), this Court already found that Writ
Court need not entertain a challenge against
the orders passed by the Consumer Forum in
all situations. A different view is not at all
necessary to that proposition. The question
raised in these writ petitions by the petitioners
is that, since these writ petitions were already
admitted long back and are pending before this
Court for the last several years, the writ
petitions may not be dismissed for the reason
that, there is an alternative remedy available
to the petitioners. This proposition cannot be
accepted as a universal principle in the light of
the decision of the Apex Court in Genpact's
India Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), in which the
earlier decision of the Apex Court in Rajya
Khanij Vikas Nigam's case (supra) is also relied.
In Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the
Apex Court considered this point in detail in
paragraph No.16, which is extracted
hereunder:
"16. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in
the approach adopted by the High Court in
refusing to entertain the Writ Petition. The
submission that once the threshold was
crossed despite the preliminary objection being
raised, the High Court ought not to have
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
considered the issue regarding alternate
remedy, may not be correct. The first order
dated 25/01/2017 passed by the High Court did
record the preliminary objection but was prima
facie of the view that the transactions defined
in S.115QA were initially confined only to those
covered by S.77A of the Companies Act.
Therefore, without rejecting the preliminary
objection, notice was issued in the matter. The
subsequent order undoubtedly made the
earlier interim order absolute. However, the
preliminary objection having not been dealt
with and disposed of, the matter was still at
large. In State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas
Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Others, 2008 (12)
SCC 675, this Court dealt with an issue whether
after admission, the Writ Petition could not be
dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.
The submission was considered by this Court
as under:
"38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is
neither the legal position nor such a
proposition has been laid down in Suresh
Chandra Tewari, (AIR 1992 All 331 (Suresh
Chandra Tewari vs. District Supply Officer),
that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be
dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All
India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that
"petition cannot be rejected on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy of filing
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
appeal". But it has not been so held in the
actual decision of the Court. The relevant para
2 of the decision reads thus: (Suresh Chandra
Tewari case, AIR p. 331) "2. At the time of
hearing of this petition a threshold question, as
to its maintainability was raised on the ground
that the impugned order was an appealable
one and, therefore, before approaching this
Court the petitioner should have approached
the appellate authority. Though there is much
substance in the above contention, we do not
feel inclined to reject this petition on the
ground of alternative remedy having regard to
the fact that the petition has been entertained
and an interim order passed,"
(emphasis supplied)
Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not
right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi
or passing of interim orders is a relevant
consideration for not dismissing a petition if it
appears to the High Court that the matter
could be decided by a Writ Court. It has been
so held even by this Court in several cases that
even if alternative remedy is available, it
cannot be held that a writ petition is not
maintainable. In our judgment, however, it
cannot be laid down as a proposition of law
that once a petition is admitted, it could never
be dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even
this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
petition which ought not to have been
entertained by the High Court under Art.226 of
the Constitution in view of availability of
alternative and equally efficacious remedy to
the aggrieved party, once the High Court has
entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and
granted the relief to the petitioner."
12. The Apex Court held that it is neither the
legal position nor a proposition that once a
petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on
the ground of an alternative remedy. The Apex
Court in an unambiguous manner observed
that it cannot be laid down as a proposition of
law that once a petition is admitted, it could
never be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy. The Apex Court observed
that if such bald contention is upheld, even the
Apex Court cannot order the dismissal of the
writ petition, which ought not to have been
entertained by the High Court under Art.226 of
the Constitution of India in view of the
availability of alternative and equally
efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party once
the High Court has entertained a writ petition,
albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the
petitioner."
9. Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court
considered the contentions of the petitioners. It is true
that there is no limitation on exercising the jurisdiction
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, if there is any
violation of fundamental rights or if any orders are
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
passed without jurisdiction. But each case has to be
decided based on its facts. The jurisdiction of this Court
may be wide, but if this Court interferes in each and
every case in which there is an illegality or impropriety,
this Court will be burdened with litigation. That is why
the PML Act provide a separate procedure for filing an
appeal and a second appeal. Unless there is an
extraordinary situation, this Court need not interfere
with an order passed under S.8 of the PML Act. "
8. It is true that this Court observed that in
certain circumstances, this Court can exercise the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, that is also a
discretion of this Court, whether to invoke the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. It is not a right of
the petitioner to argue that the writ jurisdiction is to be
exercised, but this Court has to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of each case.
9. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I
am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which
this Court needs to entertain a writ petition because the
petitioner can approach the civil court by filing appropriate
proceedings, wherein the petitioner can adduce evidence and
the civil court can pass appropriate order in accordance with
law, after hearing the affected parties. Therefore, all the
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left
open, and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before the
competent civil court by filing a civil suit in accordance with
law.
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
SPV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 10.02.2026
Judgment dictated 10.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 10.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 10.02.2026
2026:KER:11752
WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 4591 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOMINATION DATED
03.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE HANDBOOK DATED
07.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED
26.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH OTHER UDF MEMBERS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 DISTRICT ELECTION
OFFICER ALONG WITH RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
AND OTHER MEMBERS TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.4 RETURNING OFFICER
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH OTHER UDF MEMBERS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STANDING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELECTED
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
05.01.2026 SERVED TO THE PETITIONER
EVIDENCING THE DATE OF RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
14.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 FORWARDING THE COMPLAINT OF THE
PETITIONER AND OTHER MEMBERS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.3
