Kerala High Court
Geetha Sukumaran vs The State Election Commission on 16 April, 2021
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.7592 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER:
GEETHA SUKUMARAN,
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING IN
THE ADDRESS CHIRANGADATH HOUSE, PALLISSERY
P.O., AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 027.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ,
KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
HAVING OFFICE AT 'JANAHITHAN' TC 27/6 (2),
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695 033
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695 001
3 THE SECRETARY,
AVINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
HAVING OFFICE AT AVINISSERI P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
ELECTION TO THE AVINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, CHERPU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 561
5 INDIRA JAYAKUMAR,
W/O.JAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT NADUVATH HOUSE,
AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH, PALISSERRY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 027
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..2..
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA
SMT.RANJITA GP
R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7602/2021(A), THE COURT
ON 16-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.7602 OF 2021(A)
PETITIONER:
HARI C. NARENDRAN,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. NARENDARAN C.R, RESIDING
IN THE ADDRESS CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, PERINCHERY,
AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING
OFFICE AT "JANAHITHAM" TC 27/6(2),
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT 695 033.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT 695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY,
AVINISSERY RAMA PANCHAYATH, HAVING OFFICE AT
AVINISSERI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
ELECTION TO THE AVINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, CHERPU P.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 561.
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..4..
5 A R RAJU,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT
EDATHEDATH HOUSE, VALLISSERI, AVINISSERY
PANCHAYATH, PERICHERI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT
680 306.
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA
R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SMT.RANJITA GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7592/2021(Y), THE COURT
ON 16-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..5..
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The question falls for consideration in these matters being common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner as also the fifth respondent in both the writ petitions are members of Avinissery Grama Panchayat (the Panchayat) elected to the office on 10.12.2020. There are altogether 14 seats in the Panchayat. In the election held on 10.12.2020, 5 seats were won by the political alliance, Left Democratic Front, 6 seats were won by the political alliance, National Democratic Alliance and the remaining 3 seats were won by the political alliance, United Democratic Front. The petitioners in the writ petitions belong to National Democratic Alliance. After the election to the W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..6..
Panchayat, election to the offices of the President and Vice- President of the Panchayat was held on 30.12.2020. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7602 of 2021 was nominated as a candidate for the election to the office of the President by the National Democratic Alliance. Likewise, the fifth respondent in the said writ petition was nominated as a candidate for the election to the office of the President by the Left Democratic Front. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7592 of 2021 was nominated as a candidate for election to the office of the Vice- President by the National Democratic Alliance and the fifth respondent in the said writ petition was nominated as a candidate for election to the office of the Vice-President by the Left Democratic Front. The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules, 1995 (the Rules) framed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) provides for open ballot for election to the offices aforesaid. In the election held on 30.12.2020, the members of the Panchayat representing the United Democratic Front as also the Left Democratic Front voted for the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) No.7602 of 2021 and consequently, he was elected as the W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..7..
President of the Panchayat, securing 8 votes. The petitioner in the said writ petition could secure only 6 votes of the members belonging to National Democratic Alliance. Similarly, the members of the Panchayat representing the United Democratic Front as also the Left Democratic Front voted in the said election for the fifth respondent in W.P.(C)No.7592 of 2021 and consequently, she was elected as the Vice-President of the Panchayat, securing 8 votes. As in the case of W.P(C) No.7602 of 2021, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7592 of 2021 could also secure only 6 votes of the members of National Democratic Alliance. Consequent upon the election, though the elected candidates assumed office as President and Vice- President of the Panchayat by making and subscribing the oath of office, they have resigned from the respective offices immediately thereafter on the same day itself, pretending that they do not want to hold the offices with the support of the members of United Democratic Front. The resignation of the President and the Vice-President of the Panchayat has been reported by the Secretary of the Panchayat to the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..8..
thereupon notified a fresh election to the said offices on 17.02.2021. In the election held on 17.02.2021 also, the very same candidates were nominated by the political alliances to the respective offices and the very same candidates won the election with the support of votes cast by the members of the United Democratic Front. As done on the previous occasion, on this occasion also, the elected candidates assumed office as President and Vice-President by making and subscribing the oath of office and resigned from the respective offices immediately thereafter, on the next day itself, on the very same ground aforesaid. The writ petitions were instituted at that point of time, seeking a declaration that the petitioners are duly elected as the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat in the election held on 17.02.2021. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since the elected candidates have resigned immediately after making and subscribing the oath, it has to be inferred that they were not willing to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the respective offices and therefore, the petitioners who were willing to discharge the duties and W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..9..
responsibilities attached to the respective offices are entitled to be declared elected.
3. The stand taken by the State Election Commission as also the contesting respondents in their respective pleadings is that since the contesting respondents have assumed offices pursuant to their election by making and subscribing the oath of office before tendering resignation, the vacancies that arose on account of their resignation thereupon are liable to be treated as casual vacancies, warranting a fresh election in terms of sub-section (16) of Section 153 of the Act.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission as also the learned counsel for the fifth respondent in the writ petitions.
5. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in T.A.Abdul Azeez v. The Kerala State Election Commission and Others, 2006 KHC 1046, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a person who is unwilling to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..10..
to an office is not entitled to be a candidate for election to that post and since the elected candidates demonstrated by their conduct that they were not willing to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the respective offices, the candidates who have secured the second highest number of votes are entitled to be declared as the President and Vice- President of the Panchayat.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State Election Commission as also the contesting respondents submitted that since the candidates elected to the office of the President and Vice-President have assumed office by making and subscribing the oath, the vacancies arose on account of their subsequent resignation are liable to be treated as casual vacancies and the mandate of the statute contained in sub-section (16) of Section 153 of the Act is that there shall be a fresh election to the said vacancies, and this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners flouting the said statutory provision. In addition, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents also submitted that the resignation of the contesting respondents after the election W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..11..
was as desired by their political alliance in terms of their political stand and when their political alliance require them to resign from the offices, they are bound to obey the direction, for mandate of the people was for the political stand of their alliance. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submitted that a fresh election to the offices of the President and Vice-president is scheduled to take place again on 20.04.2021.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side.
8. Section 153(1) of the Act provides for a President and Vice-President for every Panchayat elected from among the elected members of that Panchayat. Section 153(1) also provides that the President shall be a full time functionary of the Panchayat. Section 156 of the Act prescribes the functions of the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat. Going by the scheme of the Act, without the incumbents in the offices of the President and Vice-President, the Panchayat will not be in a position to discharge its functions as a constitutional institution. In other words, if W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..12..
there are no incumbents in the offices of the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat, the very purpose of establishing the Panchayat and conferring on them the powers and authority to function as a unit of self Government would be defeated.
9. Sub-section (13) of Section 153 of the Act provides that before entering upon the offices, an oath or affirmation in the form set out in the Second Schedule to the Act shall be made and subscribed by the President and Vice- President. Sub-section (16) of Section 153 provides that any casual vacancy arising in the office of the President or Vice- President shall be reported to the State Election Commission and the State Election Commission shall take steps for conduct of election of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 2(vi) of the Act defines 'casual vacancy' as a vacancy occurring otherwise than by efflux of time. In T.A.Abdul Azeez, in the light of the pari materia provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, this Court held that willingness to act as a Chairperson, if elected, and to assume W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..13..
office and discharge duties and responsibilities attached to the office is sine qua non for a person to be nominated as a candidate for election to the Chairperson of a Municipality and a person who is unwilling to take oath and assume office as a Chairperson of the Municipality, whatever be the excuse, cannot be regarded as a candidate for election to that post. It was clarified by this court in the said case that adherence to the policies of the political party concerned is no answer to the constitutional obligation to discharge the public duties attached to the office to which he is elected. It was also held by this court in the said case that if such a person does not take oath within the time stipulated, the vacancy arose on account of such a situation cannot be regarded as a casual one, warranting fresh election. T.A.Abdul Azeez is a case where a person elected as a Chairperson of a Municipality has not assumed office by making and subscribing the oath, and it was held in the said case that in the absence of any provisions to take care of such a situation, the person who secured the second highest number of votes is entitled to be declared as the Chairperson of the Municipality. Paragraphs 20 W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..14..
to 23 of the said judgment read thus:
20. This litigation is not one to be treated as an adversarial one, between the petitioner on the one hand and the contesting respondents on the other. While hearing such a matter, the constitutional court acts as a sentinel on the qui vive discharging its obligation as custodian of the constitutional morals, ethics and code of conduct well defined in a series of judicial pronouncements. The Court, while scrutinising the conduct and activities of those involved in the administration of a public institution, like a Municipality which is constituted with the avowed object of serving the society, is obliged to see that its existence and activities are guided with the object of public good and are in consonance with the constitutional goals. The constitutional courts are not to remain silent spectators watching the subversion of the Constitution. The fact that the founding fathers of our Constitution designedly and deliberately, did not envisage the imposition of any jurisdictional embargo on them is significant and sufficient enough to identify the depth, width and extent of the powers of the constitutional Courts. The fetters devised or perceived on their exercise of powers or jurisdiction to entertain and deal with a matter are merely self imposed, for one or the other reason, assigned therefor and they would not stand in the way of or deter the constitutional Courts in any manner from rising up to respond in a given situation as and when necessitated and effectively playing their role in accommodating the Constitution to changing circumstances and enduring values. As sentinels on the qui vive, the constitutional Courts are duty bound to preserve and safeguard the Constitution, protect and enforce the constitutional mandates which declare the W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..15..
inviolable rights of the people. The views in this regard, expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (4) SCC 578, are apposite in this context. The constitutional Courts are ordained to uphold the Constitution and they interpret the Constitution and defend the fundamentals of "rule of law".
21. A legislation should withstand the tests on the touchstone of the constitutional provisions. But then, it is not always the corollary that all legislations have satisfied the constitutional goals. Nor is it for the Courts to assume that the constitutional goals are controlled and delimited by the statutes made by the legislatures. The provision contained in sub-s.8A of S.12 is merely one that the Legislature envisaged as a possible way of notifying the continued existence of a vacancy. But that is not all. There is always a room unfilled by the statutes, but available in the Constitution, going by that parent document of the Nation which reflects the aspirations of her people and the goals, to be achieved, which are always positive. In the absence of Legislative provisions to take care of the situation created by the third respondent, in my considered view, it is the constitutional duty of the writ court to come to the aid of a constitutional institution, namely, the Palakkad Municipality.
22. As can be noticed from the facts of this case, all that is going on, is a game of musical chair, merrily played at the cost of the Exchequer. Is this what is contemplated by the Constitution? Is this the dictate of the Sovereign, namely, the People? The situation in hand is one where the third respondent ought to be treated as one who has W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..16..
breached the willingness given by him in terms of R.6(1) of the Election Rules by his refusal to take oath on being elected by the electoral college which acted on the basis of the willingness expressed by him in terms of the said Rule. It is the situation where the third respondent has, thus, recalled himself from being a contender to hold the post of the Chairperson. The situation requires and deserves to be remedied. Under the circumstances, it is the situational requirement in terms of the Constitution and the laws that the person who polled the second highest number of votes is declared as the Chairperson and is to be administered oath in terms of the law, to be let to assume the office of the Chairperson. It is so declared.
23. In view of the aforesaid, it is declared that the fourth respondent is entitled to be administered oath in terms of the law, to be let to assume the office of the Chairperson of the Palakkad Municipality, following the election held on 24/05/2006.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts of the case decided in T.A.Abdul Azeez and the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the declaration sought in the writ petitions as granted to the petitioner in T.A.Abdul Azeez. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however, takes the stand that the dictum in the said case cannot be W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..17..
applied to the facts of the present cases since the elected candidates in the present cases have assumed their respective offices by making and subscribing the oath of office, before tendering resignations.
10. True, unlike in the case dealt with in T.A.Abdul Azeez, the contesting respondents in the cases on hand have assumed their respective offices pursuant to their election by making and subscribing the oath. Since the contesting respondents have assumed their offices pursuant to the election before they have resigned from the offices concerned, technically, it is possible to contend that there has to be a fresh election to the offices in terms of Sub-section (16) of Section 153. Should this Court uphold the said technical stand ignoring the unusual and strange conduct of the contesting respondents is the question to be addressed. As noted, elections were held to the offices of the President and Vice-President twice. On both the occasions, the contesting respondents purported to have expressed their willingness to be nominated as candidates for election to the office of the President and Vice-President. As held by this W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..18..
court in T.A.Abdul Azeez, willingness of a member for being nominated as a candidate for election to an office of the local body is the willingness to act as the holder of the office, if elected and assume office and discharge duties and responsibilities attached to that office. As indicated, the Rules provide for open ballot and the contesting respondents were aware of the fact that they secured more votes than the petitioners in the writ petitions, as the members belonging to the United Democratic Front cast their votes in their favour. If the ideology the contesting respondents possess does not permit them to hold the offices of the President and Vice- President with the support of the members belonging to United Democratic Front, they should not have assumed offices by making and subscribing the oath. In other words, they have made and subscribed the oath without their being any intention to hold the offices. This has happened not once, but twice. It is evident that the contesting respondents have adopted the said course for the purpose of preventing the petitioners being elected to the respective offices following the dictum in T.A.Abdul Azeez. In the course of the hearing, W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..19..
this court required the learned counsel for the contesting respondents to state as to whether the contesting respondents intend to contest again to the offices of the President and Vice-President in the scheduled election. The stand taken by the counsel in response to the said query was that they may contest again, if they are required to contest by their political party and they may resign also, if they are required to do so after the election. As noted, though the election to the Panchayat took place as early as on 30.12.2020, the members are unable to elect the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat. If the contesting respondents and the members belonging to the Left Democratic Front adopt the same stand in the future elections also, so long as the National Democratic Front and the United Democratic Front do not have the strength sufficient to elect the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Panchayat will not have a President and Vice-president at all. As explicit from the statute, the mandate is that there shall be a President and Vice-President for the Panchayat. The W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..20..
materials on record would show beyond any shadow of doubt that the conduct of the contesting respondents in making and subscribing the oath without there being any intention to hold the offices was to ensure that nobody other than the contesting respondents function as the President and Vice- President of the Panchayat. It is well settled that a provision in a statute shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance and such conducts are impliedly forbidden and a court of law will not tolerate such an evasion of a statute as it amounts to a positive fraud on the statute [See Craies on Statute Law 7 th edition, page 78]. It is also well settled that a colourable attempt of a party to evade the provisions of a statute while complying with the letter of the statute would also amount to fraud on the statute. It is so held in Ramsden v. Lupton, [L.R.] 9 Q.B. 17. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:
It is rather difficult to put into any other form what exactly is meant by an arrangement that is a fraud upon an Act of Parliament of this sort. I perfectly understand the expression, and it may be a very legitimate one to use with regard to the bankruptcy laws which are passed for different purposes, and an attempt to evade which, while complying with the letter of the statute, has been held by W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..21..
the courts, and has repeatedly been decided, to be, not a successful evasion of the statute, but such a colourable attempt to evade the statute as the Court would describe as a fraud upon it.
In the cases on hand, the attempt of the contesting respondents was to defeat the requirement of the statute that there shall be a President and Vice-President for the Panchayat by complying with the letter of the statute viz, by making and subscribing the oath before resigning from the office. Such a course, in the light of the principles aforesaid, would certainly amount to fraud on the statue, viz, the Act. In other words, the conduct of the contesting respondents in making and subscribing the oath without there being any intention to assume office and discharge the duties and functions attached to the office, has no legal foundation, for it is vitiated by fraud. If that be so, the situation created by the contesting respondents would not fall within the scope of Sub-
section (16) of Section 153 of the Act and the decision of this Court in T.A.Abdul Azeez would squarely apply.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.7602 of 2021 and W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..22..
7592 of 2021 are entitled to be declared as elected to the posts of President and Vice-President respectively of the Panchayat in the election held on 17.02.2021, and entitled to be administered oath as President and Vice-President.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
rkj
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..23..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7592/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH HELD ON
30.12.20
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION LETTER
OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED
30.12.2020
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.21
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2006
(4) KLT PAGE 7 DATED 25.8.06
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 3.3.21
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYATH
RAJ (RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT OF MEMBERS) RULES 2000 DATED
26.12.02
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
15.03.2021
EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIE DATED
26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING
OFFICER, G58 AVINISSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, CHERU
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..24..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7602/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH HELD ON
30.12.20.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER
OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED
30.12.20.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION OF THE
FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.21.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED
BY THIS HONBLE COURT REPORTED IN 2006
(4) KLT PAGE 7 DATED 25.8.06.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 3.3.21.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAH
RAJ (RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT OR MEMBERS) RULES 2000 DATED
26.12.02.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
15.03.2021
EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIE DATED
26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING
OFFICER, G58 AVINISSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, CHERU