Kerala High Court
Palode Santhosh vs The Election Commission Of India on 13 June, 2013
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/22ND MAGHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 886 of 2014 (I)
--------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
PALODE SANTHOSH, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, K.P.HOUSE,
CHERIYATHOLICODU, DAIVAPURA P.O.,
PALODE, PACHA, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA
BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY,
NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. M.P. VEERENDRA KUMAR
PRESIDENT, SOCIALIST JANATHA (DEMOCRATIC)
REGN. NO.6/924-B-1, CALICUT HOUSE,
CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY BUILDING, YMCA CROSS ROAD
CALICUT-673 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 886 of 2014 (I)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 25-1-13.
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-6-2013
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11-9-13 N
WPC.21731/13 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-9-13
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES :
----------------------- -----------
ANNEXURE A: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 26/11/2013 OF
THE WRIT PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.56/1100/2011-PPS-II
DT 22/1/2014 ISSUED OF THIS RESPONDENT TO THE R2.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 886 of 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT
This is the second round of litigation that the petitioner is pursuing before this Court. In the earlier round, by filing W.P.(C) No. 21731 of 2013, the petitioner sought to quash the decision taken by the first respondent while disposing the complaint preferred by the petitioner in a cursory manner and to direct the first respondent to make an enquiry, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The said writ petition was considered by this Court and interference was declined, as per Ext. P3 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows;
"After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the only relief sought for as per Ext. P1 complaint was to conduct an 'enquiry'. This was considered and the matter was got enquired into. Ext. P3 has been issued pursuant to the outcome of the said enquiry. This Court does not find any reason to call for any interference. The petitioner has not substantiated the facts and figures as to the allegations levelled against and this cannot be adjudicated by this Court assuming the role of a fact finding agency, invoking the W.P.(C) No. 886 of 2014 : 2 : power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has subsequently produced further materials and preferred Ext. P3 representation dated 20.09.2013, but the same is still to be considered. Hence the Writ Petition.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, with reference to which the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submits that Ext.P4 has not been received to the said respondent. But some what similar representation has been obtained, as borne by Annexure A, pursuant to which, same was forwarded to the second respondent vide Annexure B for obtaining clarification.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the proceedings being pursued by the petitioner are per se wrong and illegal in all respects. Since the issue was once considered by this Court, declining interference, it is no more open for the petitioner to re-open the same issue by filing another representation. It is stated that a detailed statement/counter affidavit is being filed by the said respondent in this regard before the first respondent, pursuant to Annexure B. W.P.(C) No. 886 of 2014 : 3 :
5. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submits that there is no question of any reconsideration of the issue which has already been considered, and the scope of consideration is only with reference to the specific point which is sought to be clarified, as revealed from Annexure B, i.e. with regard to the merger of Kerala Unit of Janata Dal (secular) with Socialist Janata (Democratic), that sole.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty to the second respondent to submit comments in response to Annexure B. The proceedings shall be finalized by the first respondent, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd