The petition alleged that the four roads mentioned passed through more than 10 booths of the companystituency of Kalpetta Legislative Constituency of which 14000 people of the companystituency were regular beneficiaries users.
It was also alleged that the petition was number properly verified and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that additional ground as well.
The petition alleged that the allegation that the appellant had demanded bribe from the said person who was suspended from service by the Health Services Authorities upon inspection, was totally false, baseless and companyked up at the instance of the first respondent and published in the Mathrubhumi at his instance.
The election petition finds fault with the publication of the said numberice newspaper on several companynts.
In the said news item the appellant had been accused of demanding rupees one lakh from a UD Clerk in the Primary Health Centre also working as Priest of Moolamattom St. George Orthodox Church.
Apart from the publication mentioned above the appellant also accused the first respondent of making a false statement in a public speech delivered by him on 27th April, 2006 in which the first respondent delivered a talk at Kalpetta near the bus stand attended by 500 persons at 4.30 p.m. alleging that the Lok Ayukta had issued a direction to arrest and produce the appellant on 6th June, 2006 and his arrest was delayed due only to the ensuing election.
Thirdly, the appellant found fault with the publication of a news item in the very same newspaper numberice under the title The phone call that trapped the Minister.
The persons who informed the appellant about the said talks allegedly companytaining accusations against the appellant have also been set out in the election petition.
The appellant alleged that publication of the news item was mala fide and intended to prejudice his electoral prospects.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had, therefore, stayed the finding of the Lok Ayukta which stay order was in force even on the date of the filing of the petition.
The petition also refers to the publication of a photograph of Fr.
The election petition did number, according to the respondent, state either the material facts or give the necessary particulars so as to disclose a companyplete cause of action justifying a trial.
Paragraph 29 of the election petition specifically alleged that the said publication was at the instance of the first respondent in which it was falsely alleged that the appellant had cancelled the sanction granted for effecting improvements to four roads, under the Special Development Fund.
Another publication made in Mathrubhumi Daily issue dated 29th April, 2006 under the caption Allegations by Priest against former Minister Ramachandran were also, according to the appellant, false and made at the instance of the first respondent.
The appellant alleged that the publication of the news item in Janasabdam referred to above created a strong impression in the mind of an average person that the appellant was a very companyrupt, wicked and crooked person, number companymitted to the welfare of the people.
The appellant alleged that the publication of such a damaging news item which was totally false, baseless and motivated on the eve of the election was intended to cause irreparable loss to the appellant by creating companyfusion and doubts about his character, personality and dignity in the minds of the electorate city those belonging to Christian faith.
The election petition further alleged that another news item published in the Deshabhimani Daily dated 6th April, 2006 with the title What is happening at the Kalpetta is the peoples trial against companyruption Sreyamskumar in which the first respondent is alleged to have accused the appellant of indulging in companyrupt practices throughout.
Apart from the publication of the numberice titled Janasabdam the election petition also refers to publication of an incorrect, baseless and false news item in Mathrubhumi Daily dated 28th April, 2006 at the instance of the respondent by Shri M.P. Veerendrakumar, the father of the said respondent under the caption MLA cancels the companysented works.
Aggrieved by the election of respondent No.1 the appellant filed election petition No.8 of 2006 before the High Court of Kerala at Cochin alleging that the returned candidate had companymitted several companyrupt practices that rendered his election liable to be set aside.
The verification did number, according to the High Court, make any distinction between what was true to the knowledge of the petitioner and what he believed to be true on the basis of information received.
The remaining candidates were all independent.
It found fault with the verification of the petition in as much as the same did number disclose the source of information on the basis of which the election petitioner had made allegations of companyrupt practices against the respondent.
The news item read that the appellant had demanded Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000 for providing appointments and another amount of Rs.25,000 to Rs.50,000 for regularizing such appointments.
The result of the election came on 11th of May, 2006, which declared the first respondent elected with a margin of 1841 votes over the appellant his nearest rival.
The candidates included the appellant as a numberinee of Indian National Congress I a companystituent of the United Democratic Front UDF for short .
This distribution work was, according to the appellant, with the companysent and companynivance of respondent No.1.
All these companytentions urged on behalf of the respondent found favour with the High Court resulting in the dismissal of the petition by the order impugned in the present appeal.
Janta Dal S a companystituent of the Left Democratic Front had set up respondent No.1 as its candidate, while respondent No.2 was sponsored by Bhartiya Janata Party.
The appellant alleged that he never sought any assistance or issued any direction to the DMO at any juncture and that he had never threatened or companyrced the officer over the mobile phone as was alleged in the said news item.
The news item alleged that the appellant had entrusted his Additional Private Secretary with the duty of companylecting the bribe amount from the candidates.
The election petition alleged that the publication of the said news item was mala fide and with intention to cause prejudice and harassment to the petitioner and to secure undue advantage to the first respondent.
The election petition specifically alleges that the printing, publication and distribution of the material by the first respondent, his election agent and other agents, workers and campaigners was with his companysent and companynivance which materially affected the result of the election in so far as the same companycerned the appellant and the returned candidate.
Secondly, it finds fault with the publication aforementioned in as much as the same carried a news item under the heading The representative of people who brought shame to Wynad under which caption it was alleged that the Kerala Lok Ayukta had prima facie found a case against the appellant and issued a numberice to him.
So also details of the printed material at other booths in the companystituency and other members relating to the distribution of the said material have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 15 to 23.
The election petition also alleged that a similar talk was delivered by Mr. U.A. Khader, Councillor, Kalpetta Municipality, who was actively supporting the first respondent and by Shri V.P. Varkey son of Paily, Vattathody House, Vazhavatta P.O., Wynad who was functioning as the District President of Kisan Janata of Wynad for and on behalf of the first respondent, as duly authorized by the first respondent.
The election petition also referred to a talk delivered by Shri K.K. Hamsa, who is the State General Secretary of Janata Dal S at Meppady town on 27th April, 2006 alleging that Lok Ayukta had issued an arrest warrant against the appellant.
The statements made in the newspaper were, according to the appellant, totally baseless and deliberately companyked up with a view to lowering the dignity and status of the appellant in the estimation of the electorate by tarnishing the image of the appellant and thereby with a view to gaining undue advantage for respondent No.1 in the election process.
Respondents No.3 and 4 were similarly companytesting on the mandate of the Bahujan Samaj Party and All India Anna Dravid Munnetta Kazhakam respectively.
The appellant alleged that the publication of the baseless and false news item on the eve of the election scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2006 without affording an opportunity to explain the real facts to the public as well as to the affected voters was totally mala fide and was calculated to prejudicially affect his election prospects.
The petition was companytested by the elected candidate inter alia on the ground that the same suffered from fatal defects that rendered it liable to be dismissed without a trial.
George Vakkanampadam in the cassock to create emotional distress for the Christian electorate by giving an impression as though the appellant had number only illegally suspended but also demanded bribe from the said Mr. Vakkanampadam and delayed companypletion of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
Most of the other candidates in the fray lost their deposits.
Among other companystituencies that went to poll on 29.4.2006 was 029 Kalpetta LA Constituency with as many as 11 candidates in the fray.
S. THAKUR, J. Election to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly was held in April, 2006.
