Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Somasekharan Nair vs C.K.Divakaran Pillai on 8 March, 2010

K.V.Sarala vs Alex on 17 November, 2020

14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision does not indicate that the 2 nd respondent was entitled to any benefit under the above provision. It is neither a contribution work in the Municipality for the benefit of the community nor is it as a representative of the community or of as Councillor. The judgment in Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai (2010 (2) KLT 1022) which has been relied upon by the Commission has no application to the facts of the present case. That was a case with reference to a contract with the local authority on behalf of a beneficiary committee. That is not the situation here. The ad hoc Committee is not the beneficiary committee in terms of the statutory provisions. It is an independent body and has ventured into a commercial contract in terms of agreement dated 31/1/2012 and admittedly the 2 nd respondent is the President of the said ad hoc Committee. It is however pointed out that the disqualification if any is co-terminus with the term of office of the Committee and since the period of Committee had already expired, no useful purpose will be served in agitating the issue.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Ayoob vs Alikutty on 6 October, 2010

Now the question is whether assuming that as on the relevant day (date of scrutiny of nomination) petitioner was convener of the beneficiary committee as pleaded by the respondent that amounted to a disqualification under Section 34(1)(g) of the Act. To answer that question reference has to be made to Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj CRP No.343/2008 3 (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules") which states that a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has any interest , for the purpose of Section 34 (1)(g) of the Act in a subsisting contract made with or in any work being done for the Panchayat concerned on the sole reason that he is having a share or interest in undertaking any contribution work in the Panchayat for the benefit of the community, not as a contractor, but as a representative of the community or the sponsor. Petitioner was elected as convener of the beneficiary committee in his capacity as a representative of the community. Dealing upon that provision a learned Single Judge of this Court in Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Nair (2010 (2) KLT 1022) has ruled that no disqualification can be imputed against the returned candidate for a contract entered into with the Government as convener of the beneficiary committee. I stated from Section 34(g)(i) of the Act that the interest referred to therein is as regards the contract made with or any work being done for the Government or the Panchayat concerned. Hence the decision must apply in the case of beneficiary committee constituted under the Panchayat as well. Therefore the fact that petitioner was the convener of a beneficiary committee by itself cannot bring any disqualification as stated in Section 34(1)(g) of the Act in the light of Rule 3(iii) of the Rules referred to above and the decision which I have referred to supra.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Rajeev Alexander vs Seynullabdeen on 14 December, 2010

Reliance is placed on Lucy Joseph v. Elikutty James and another {2009(4) KHC 4431}, Gopalakrishnan v. Sarasi {2009 (2) KLT 882}, Shaji Mathew v. Thomas Chacko {2010 (2) KLT 148, Karunakaran v. Chandran Panikkar {2010 (2) KLT 379} Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai {2010 (2) KLT 1022}, to contend that the Act does not contemplate of treating Form 2A fake, for the reason that the particulars stated therein are not correct or inaccurate. In the absence of specific pleading and proof there was material suppression of facts which would render Form 2A fake on the basis of inaccurate or incorrect particulars furnished in such Form, that alone, the election of the returned candidate is not liable to be set aside, is the submission of the counsel urging for reversing the concurrent decision rendered by the courts below annulling his election as a member of a panchayat.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

T.K.Mohanan vs V.D.Joseph on 5 February, 2013

6. I have already pointed out that petitioner even in the election petition has no case that the returned candidate materially suppressed any of his assets but only that Form 2A furnished by him with his nomination paper was incomplete. Does it render his Form 2A a fake is the question to be looked into. This Court in Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai (2010 (2) KLT 1022) has held thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Alex vs The Kerala State Election Commission on 17 August, 2013

14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision does not indicate that the 2nd respondent was entitled to any benefit under the above provision. It is neither a contribution work in the Municipality for the benefit of the community nor is it as a representative of the community or of as Councillor. The judgment in Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai (2010 (2) KLT 1022) which has been relied upon by the Commission has no application to the facts of the present case. That was a case with reference to a contract with the local authority on behalf of a beneficiary committee. That is not the situation here. The ad hoc Committee is not the beneficiary committee in terms of the statutory provisions. It is an independent body and has ventured into a commercial contract in terms of agreement dated 31/1/2012 and admittedly the 2nd respondent is the President of the said ad hoc Committee. It is however pointed out that the disqualification if any is co-terminus with the term of office of the Committee and since the period of Committee had already expired, no useful purpose will be served in agitating the issue.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Shaffique - Full Document
1