BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
A.S.NO .of 2017
Appellant/ petitioner.
Respondents:
K.P.Kuttan.
1- Molly.T,Jose
2-
Rajesh.T Varghese
3-
Vibin.V.B.
4-
V.G.Mohanan.
5- T.K.Sajulal
6-
M.T.Madhu
. 7- K.Sarghadharan
Full name and address of the appellant.
K.P.Kuttan@Kuttan Kattachira, aged 60, Son of
Poovanchan, residing at Kannuvettiyel , house, Thalayolaparambu P.O.Pin.686605.
Full name and address of the respondents:
1- Returning Officer, Thalayolaparambu Grama
Panchayat, Molly. T. Jose, Assistant Agricultural Director, Krishi Bhavan,
KaduthuruthyP.O.
2- Assistant Returning Officer, Rajesh.T.Varghese,
Secretary, Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat. Thalayolaparambu. P.O. Pin 686605.
3-Vipin.V.B.,UD.Clerk,Thalayolaparambu,GramaPanchayat
Office, Thalayolaparambu .P.O. Pin 686605.
4-V.G.Mohanan aged 61, Minchiyath house.
Thalayolaparambu P.O. Pin 686605.
5- T.K.Sajulal, aged 46, Thekkemaliyil. house,
Thalayolaparambu .P.O. pin 686605.
6- M.T.Madhu.aged 36, Minjiyath house, Thalayolaparambu
.P..O. Pin.686605.
7- K.Sarghadharan, aged 61, Ashalayam, house,
Thalayolaparambu .P.O. pin 686605.
(All notices and process to the parties may be served
in the above address)
IN THE
COURT OF MUNSIFF VAIKOM
E.O. P. NO. 07/
2015
Petitioner
K.P.Kuttan.
Respondents.
1 -
Molly.T.Jose
2-Rajesh.T.Varghese
3- Vibin.V.B.
4-V.G.Mohanan.
5-T.K.Sajulal
6- M.T. Madhu
7- K.Sarghadharan
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order in E.O.P.No.072015 of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom, dated 17-02-2017 by
Party in person under Section 113(A)of Kerala Panchayat.Raj.Act,1994 and Order
XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure,on the following:-
GROUNDS.
1- The judgment and decree of the lower court are
against the law and equities of the case.
2- The lower court ought to have found that the 1st
respondent is not entitled to accept the "A "and "B " Forms
from Secularized Political party to Scheduled caste reserved ward. The Form
" A "and" B" is for the communication with regard to authorized
person to intimate names of candidate set up by recognized National or State
political party or registered non recognized political party that which not
warranted for the Scheduled castes by the evidence and circumstances of the
case.
3-The lower court ought to have found that the
Political party is registered under section 29 A. of the Representation of
People Act 1951 with the extract wording of" Secularism". The lower
court failed to consider that the mixing of secularism and religions of the
candidates are election offences under section 125.
4- The lower court ought to have found that the
electoral offence section 125 reads as " any person who in connection with
an election under this act promotes or attempt to promote on ground of religion, race, caste, community or language,
feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of
India shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three
years, or with fine, or with both." therefore the 1st and 2nd respondents
are included as " any person" provided by the law and fact.
5- The lower court ought to have found that the 4, 5,and 6 respondent’s castes and religions
promotion with the reserved symbols of political parties are offensive in the
scheduled caste reserved ward, in the light of the case as well as the conduct
, but failed to act so.
6-On 1994(2)Crimes 582, Rupabhai vs State of Gujarat
the Lordship expressed that " Court is empowered to compound offences by
invoking inherent powers under the SC&ST.(POA)Act 1989 and Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955. Having in the face of evidence, the lower court ought
to have recognized the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste member legally
entitled the protection avail under Act 33 of 1989.
7- An ordinance to amend the SC&ST(POA) Act 1989 ,
Amendment Bill,2013, to give effect to the aforesaid objective, was introduced
on the 12th December 2013 in the House of People; in section 3 of the Principal Act, (i) for
subsection defines ( 1), (C), not to propose or second the nomination of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe as a candidate in any election. and
section ( u) defines :- by words either written or spoken or by signs or by
visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempt to promote feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes, The lower court ought to have found that the approval of
"A" and " B" Forms of the party so registered under section
29 A of the Representation of People Act,
1951 shall be deemed to be a registered political party for the purpose of the
election symbols ( Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, and thereby the
allotment of political parties reserved symbols in the Scheduled Caste reserved
constituency election by the 1st respondent shall be offensive.
8- The lower court ought to have found that the
complaint itself disclosed that the 1st respondent abated the political
parties, by allotting the party symbols in the Scheduled Caste reserved ward to
violate Sub-section (3 A) of section 123
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which prohibits the promotion or
attempt to promote feelings of enmity..and hatred between different classes for
the furtherance of the election in the Scheduled Caste reserved ward. The lower
court denied to apply its mind about such provisions of the Constitution.
9- On 17- 02-2017 the lower court dismissed the
EOP/07/2015.Before the date of dismissal of the lower court, on 2nd January
2017, the Supreme Court of India.(Abhiram Sing vs C.D. Commachan. (Dead) By
LRS.& Ors] in Civil appeal No.37of 1992, the Lordship S.A.BOBDE, J. observed
that " It is an overriding duty of the Court, while interpreting the
provisions of a statute that the intention of the legislature is not frustrated
and any doubt or ambiguity must be resolved by recourse to the rules of
purposive construction. The lower court denied to apply its mind for the same
after a long period of 13 months from the institution of the case even though
the council for the petitioner called the attention of the above decision of
Supreme Court.
10-The lower court ought to have declared that whatever
be the state attitude towards religious sects and denominations, a religious
activity cannot be allowed to mix with the secular activities of the State. The
Supreme Court decision by the Lordship .S.A.Bobde.J. in (Abhiram Sing vs
C.D.Commachan ) case held that, encroachment of religious activities in the
secular activities of the State was prohibited as is evident from the
provisions of Constitution themselves
11- The lower court ought to have find out that the
1st respondent mix the secularism of
political parties with the nomination paper
accompanied with the caste certificates of three candidates by acceptance of
their ' A" and '"B" Forms and allotment of party symbols to that
scheduled caste candidates are guilty of corrupt practice of section 123
and 123 (3A) of the R.P..Act.1951. The Supreme Court
in Abhiram Sing vs C.D.Commachan case the Lordship held that " Under our
Constitution, no party or Organization can simultaneously be a political and a
religious party, ".
11-The Supreme Court in Abhiram Sing vs C.D.Commachan
case, the Lordship held that If a political party espousing a particular
religion comes to power, that religion tends to become, in practice, the
official religion. All other religions come to acquire a secondary status, at
any rate, a less favorable position. This would be plainly antithetical to
Articles 14 to 16, 25 and the entire constitutional scheme adumbrated hereinabove.
Therefore the lower court ought to have found that the religion mixture of 4th
respondent made by the 1st respondent to the secularism of Indian Union Muslim
League party and thereby secure votes with its official symbol"
ladder," from the scheduled caste reserved ward is illegal thereby
adversely affected the petitioner/ appellant herein.
12-The Kerala Panchayat Raj,Section 52 Defines the
presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.
Section 52(2) defines ; In a constituency where the
seat is reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes a candidate shall not
be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that unless his nomination paper
contains a deceleration by him that particular caste or tribe which is a member . The lower court failed to
find that the mixing of B Form of Political party together with 3 Scheduled
Caste candidates respondents 4,5,and 6 on 18-10-2015 and published in the list
of contesting candidates along with the petitioner U/s.57(2) of KPR Act 1994 is
a flagrant violation of section 102(1)(i) of KPR Act 1994.
13- The lower court declared that" so long as the
contesting of a scheduled caste member in a ward reserved for scheduled castes
representing a political party is not prohibited by any provision of law relating
to election." .The findings of the lower court is gone wrong in the case.
14- The lower court admitted that Shri.Panakkadu
Shihab Thangal, Shri.Kunjalikutty, the non scheduled castes , and their organization
Indian Union Muslim League and its reserved symbol -Ladder- have the right to enjoy the benefits of
Scheduled castes under Article 341and 330 of the Constitution of India, are
entitled to secured a number of 303 votes from the Scheduled Caste reserved
ward is not prohibited by any provision of law. The petitioner rejecting the
findings of the lower court.
15- The lower court admitted that, Shri.V.S.Achuthanandan, Shri. Pinarai Vijayan
,the non scheduled castes and their organization, Communist Party of India ( Marxist) and its reserved symbol - Sickle, Hammer - and Star , have
the right to enjoy the benefits of Scheduled Castes under the Constitution of
India, Article 341, and Article 330, are entitled to secured a number of 301
votes from the scheduled caste reserved ward,
is not prohibited by any provision of law. The petitioner rejecting the findings
of the lower court.
16- The lower court admitted that, Shri.Abdul Nazer
Madhani , Poonthura Ziraj.the non scheduled castes and their organization People
Democratic Party and its symbol - Country Boat - have the right to enjoy the
benefits of Scheduled Castes under Article 341, and 330 of the Constitution of
India are entitled to secured a number of 103 votes from the scheduled Caste
reserved ward is not prohibited by any provision of law.The petitioner
rejecting the findings of the lower court.
17- The lower court has not considered the question of
law and facts in this case.
18- Sufficient opportunity was not given to the
petitioner to adduce all evidences.
For these and other reasons to be submitted at the
time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased
to set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and allow this appeal
with costs.
Valuation.
This appeal is
valued Rupees 500/-is paid under section 115(1) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 .
Dated this the 18th day of March 2017.
Appellant / Petitioner.
K.P.Kuttan.@Kuttan Katttachira
Comments