LI Network
Published on: December 12, 2023 at 16:08 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld a State Election Commission order, asserting that parties defected and were disqualified due to their failure to comply with written instructions issued by the party whip. Allegations were made that the whip was served without authority at the old address and was incomplete and improper.
The Court, affirming the validity of the notice served, stated that the failure to deliver the notice was the responsibility of the addressee, not the sender, when sent to the correct address and returned as unclaimed or when the addressee had left.
It emphasized that it was the addressee’s duty to provide a new address to postal authorities in the event of an address change.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, relying on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989), commented, “Failure to provide the new address to the postal authorities cannot prejudice the sender in such circumstances.”
Background
The petitioners and respondents, candidates of the Indian National Congress (INC) and part of the United Democratic Front (UDF) coalition, were alleged to have violated written instructions served with the whip, resulting in their disqualification by the State Election Commission. The petitioners contested the order in the High Court.
The petitioners argued that the whip was not issued in accordance with the law, citing improper procedure and incomplete documentation. They also claimed that the whip was served to their old address, raising concerns about the adequacy of notice.
Observations of the Court
The Court found that the petitioners, elected candidates of INC, had the whip posted to the addresses provided in the Panchayat, and no official change of address had been made. The postal articles were returned as ‘unclaimed,’ and the whip was served with written directions in both Malayalam and Tamil.
The High Court noted that the endorsements on the postal cover indicated that the petitioners were informed about the postal articles but did not claim them, leading to the articles being returned to the sender. Referring to relevant rules and acts, the Court concluded that the refusal of notice and unclaimed notice would be considered served if sent within the required timeframe.
The Court highlighted that the obligation of the sender was fulfilled when notice was served to the correct address. Citing Supreme Court decisions, it stated, “When a notice is sent to the correct address, the obligation of the sender ends with that, and if he does not claim the notice, it shall be deemed that there was valid service of notice.”
In summary, the Court upheld the order of the State Election Commission, affirming that the parties were sent written instructions with a valid and complete whip.
Case title: Praveena Ravikumar v State Election Commission & Connected Case
