K.M.Sukumaran v. State Election Commission
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/7TH PHALGUNA, 1936 RP.No. 181 of 2015 (I) IN WP(C).16285/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE UDGMENT IN WP(C) 16285/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-12-2014 REVIEW PETITIONERS:
------------------------ K.M.SUKUMARAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O.K.K.MAYILAN, RESIDING AT KOCHUVEETIL, NETAJI ROAD COUNCILLOR, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA PIN-683101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENTS:
--------------------
1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEX, L.M.S.JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNICIPAL HOUSE PIN-683101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. SECRETARY ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA MUNICIPAL HOUSE, PIN-683101 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. GRIGARY JOSEPH XIV/275, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, ALUVA WEST ERNAKULAM-683101.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682030.
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
7. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLAYAMBALAM AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKA NAGAR, VETTIYAR P.O. VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
8. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAPHALLAYAM COMPLEX TRIDA BUILDING, PALAYAM, UNIVERSITY P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
-2RP.No. 181 of 2015 (I) IN WP(C).16285/2014
9. ANUJA A.S.
(FORMER MUNICIPAL SECRETARY ALUVA MUNICIPALITY) NOW RESIDING AT COCHIN CORPORATION QUARTERS ERNAKULAM-682011.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T P SAJID R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R2 & R5 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkj -2-
RP.No. 181 of 2015 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1:
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16285 OF 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 09.12.2014 ANNEXURE A2:
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2015 IN W.A.NO.224 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE A3:
TRUE COPY OF SCHEME OF BY-ELECTION DATED 03.02.2015 OF DIFFERENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT COUNCILS ISSUED BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSION RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
--------------------------------------------- in W.P.(C) No.16285 of 2014 ----------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner in the writ petition has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated 09.12.2014. As per the judgment, the writ petition has been dismissed, relegating the petitioner to pursue his remedy against Exhibit P27 in the writ petition, before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. The judgment was passed on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had already challenged Exhibit P27 before the Tribunal and that he would pursue his remedies before the said Forum. The counsel for the petitioner now points out that, he had not noticed at that time that, the only remedy available to the petitioner against Exhibit P17 was before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is
-:2:- contended that, the effect of the judgment is to foreclose a remedy that is available to the petitioner against Exhibit P17. Inasmuch as, the judgment sought to be reviewed has proceeded on the assumption that it would be possible for the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, it is contended that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment. 2.
I have heard the learned Government Pleader who appears for respondents 5 to 7, Advocate Murali Purushothaman who appears for the first respondent as well as Sri V.M. Kurian who appears for respondents 2 and . 3.
It is not in dispute that, the only remedy of the petitioner against Exhibit P17 is under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment has been rendered on the assumption that it would be possible for the petitioner to raise all his contentions in the writ petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions,
-:3:- Thiruvananthapuram, which is erroneous. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying a review of the judgment.
This petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 09.12.2014 is reviewed and set aside. Post the writ petition before the appropriate Court as per Roster. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj