These writ petitions are all filed challenging an order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, condoning the delay of 5 days in filing an original petition under Rule 4A of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of the Defected Members) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short). The original petitions were all filed by the common second respondent, in these writ petitions. She has filed the 4 original petitions alleging disqualification against 4 members of the Vembayam Grama Panchayat alleging that they have become disqualified on the ground of defection. The original petitions ought to have been filed on 19.6.2014. The cause of action for filing them has arisen on 4.6.2014. As per sub rule 2 of Rule 4A of the Rules, such applications had to be filed within 15 days of the cause action. There was a delay of 5 days in filing the original petitions. Therefore, applications for condonation of the delay were preferred. The common grounds put forward for condonation of the delay was that, the second respondent had been laid up with viral fever for a period of 15 days prior to the date of filing the original petitions.
2. The respective petitioners in these writ petitions, against whom the original petitions have been filed entered appearance and filed their objections, disputing the reason put forward for condonation of the delay. According to them, the second respondent had not produced any medical records to support her contention that she had been laid up with viral fever. The first respondent Election Commission considered the contentions of the parties and as per the impugned order, Ext.P3, condoned the delay of 5 days in filing the original petitions. The petitioners challenge the said order in these writ petitions.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that, the reason put forward by the second respondent was false. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting held on 17.6.2014 where the second respondent has signed as serial No.63. Ext.P5 is a copy of the relevant page of the log book that has been produced to show that on 16.6.2014 the petitioner had travelled by car to a place called Thekkada. Ext.P6 is a copy of the extract of another log which shows that the petitioner had travelled on 21.6.2014. According to the petitioners, the documents Exts.P4, P5 and P6 could not be produced before the first respondent before Ext.P3 was passed. It was for the said reason that, the explanation of the second respondent for the delay was accepted. The petitioners therefore seek the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P3 and directing a de novo consideration of the application for condonation of delay.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is pointed out by Advocate K.T.Shyam Kumar who appears for the second respondent that the delay was only 5 days, which has been condoned by the first respondent exercising its discretion. Inasmuch as the exercise of discretion is neither perverse nor unreasonable, no interference by this Court is called for. According to Advocate Murali Purushothaman, who appears for the first respondent the documents on which the petitioners now place reliance were all obtained by them long after Ext.P3 order was passed. The first respondent had passed Ext.P3 order on the basis of the documents placed before it. Since the delay was only small, the exercise of discretion by the first respondent to condone the same cannot be found fault with.
5. Heard. A perusal of sub rule 2 of Rule 4A shows that the first respondent is conferred with the power to condone the delay on being satisfied that there was sufficient explanation for the same. It is not in dispute that though the writ petitioners had filed their objections, none of the documents on which reliance is placed before me had been brought to the notice of the first respondent. A perusal of the said exhibits shows that Ext.P4 was obtained on an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 submitted on 22.7.2014. Ext.P5 has been obtained on a similar application submitted on 23.7.2014. Ext.P6 has also been obtained on an application of the same date. Since Ext.P6 relates to a journey undertaken by the second respondent on 21.6.2014 after the date of filing of the petition before the first respondent, the same is not relevant at all. The other two documents, Exts.P4 and P5 can at best show that on 16th and 17th the second respondent was well enough to have filed the original petition before the first respondent. The said documents were, as already noted above not placed before the first respondent also. The first respondent has therefore passed Ext.P3 on the basis of the averments made in the petition. The original petitions have only been taken on file, no action prejudicial to the interests of the writ petitioners have been taken by the first respondent. The delay is also not substantial.
6. In view of the above, I do not consider it necessary or expedient to interfere with Ext.P3 and to direct a de novo consideration of the applications for condonation of delay submitted by the second respondent. The exercise of discretion by the first respondent cannot be found fault with.
For the above reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.