- tq *

Rqf. nre-page,-
, orow 15'that
DEO, Thiruvananthapuram, I(erala in his Scrutiny Repoft has stated in
total expenditure shown by Sh. C. K. Hareendran, CPI(M), returned candidate from
137-Parassala AC, Kerala Assembly Election, 2016 is Rs. 22,11,006/-. Total expenditure
recorded in SOR is Rs. 36,33,025/- and the returned candidate has understated Rs.
l4,,Z1,0lgl-. DEO, Thiruvananthapuram has given remark in 'column 8' of liis Suffi-,ury
Reporl and 'row 22' of his Scrutiny Repofi that he is not agree rvith accolrnt of electiorr
expenses of the returned candidate. Therefore, Commission sgrSht his comment in this
regard along with relevant documents vide its letter dated Ol.ffi.ZOl7 followed by several
+(
numbers of reminders and DO letter dated 04.03'.2020. We ltave calculated understatenient of
Rs. 17,97,113/- as calculation of understatement recorded in DEO's Scrutiny Rifiort has

adjusted expenditure incurred on 'Other Expenditure'. ,I

Z. With reference to the above mentioned Commission's DO letter dated 04.03.2020' CEO'
a
Kerala vide his DO letter dated I 9.$.L020, has stated that total amount of election
expenses recorded in SOR was Rs. 45,40,310/-, whereas the czrrrditlate has submittetl
accounts of Rs. 22,11,0061-. A,fotlce was given on the retrtrned.candidate on 14.06.2016 to
furnish details related to the understated amount. The returned canclidate subrnitted his reply
on 17.06.2016. DEMC committee examined the accounts of election expenses of the retuned
candidate on 19.06.2016. DEMC committee decided to deduct expense:rmounting Rs.
g,07,Z8Sl- and finalised total election expenses of the returned canclidate as Rs.

36,33,0251- (Rs.45,40,310/- - Rs. 9,07,2851-).Hence, as per aforesaid calculation done by

DEMC committee, the returned candidate has breached the prescribed ceiling limit of
Rs. 28 Lahh and un$erstated
t
Rs. 14,22,019/-.
3. T5e copvol S,6n, certified by DEO, Thiruvananthapuram, received in the Commission,
rray also be perused along with DO letterdated 19.03.2020 of CEO, I(erala. It is recorded irr
SOR (last three pages) that request made by the returned candidate r'vith reference to the
notice served upon him by RO has beerr considered arrd based on the f-acts decisiort has been
taken to deduct an amount of Rs. 1619918331- and to reduce total amortut of election

expenses Rs. 42,30,7 431- to Rs. 25,30,910/-. So, as per SOR, total amount of election
expenses of the returned candidate is Rs. 25,30,91(ll- which is less than maximum ceiling

limit of Rs. 28 Lakh.

4. As there is clifference between the staternent of CEO Kerala, DEO's Scrtrtiny Report and
;h
record maintained in SOR. A clarificatiorl nlay be sought in this regard as per DFA.

Gl*"'*
t .,-*, /L-'*
 l

_13-

Ref. note and orders at pre-pages may be seen:

The Matter relates to the account of election expenditure filed by Sri. K. Ansalan,
CPI(M), returned candidate from l4O-Neyyattinkara Assembly Constituency during the
General Election to the_Legislative Assembly of Kerala, 2016. As per the DEO's Summary
Report and the Scnifiny Report, the total expenditure incured by the candidate during the
said election was Fts.25,26,385/-. In the Scru"tiny repofi, the DEO, Thiruvananthapuram has

pointed out that the returned candidate has understated an amount of Rs, 69,4771- in the
account of election expenditure submitted by him.

In this regard, the DEO, Thiruvananthapuram was requested through CEO, Kerala to
)i-' ^ furnish the certified copies of all the evidences along with his comments and information in
?\J
.\
supporl of understatement in the prescribed Format, vide Commission's letter dated
x
08.1012018. Several reminders were also issued to tfp DEO, Thiruvananthapuram through

CEO, Kerala, in this regard. A DO letter dated O+."0\i.ZOZO was issued to the CEO, Kerala to
expedite the matter and obtain the requisite information from DEO, Thiruvananthapuram
and make these available to the Commission for fuither necessary action.

Now, in response to Commission's said DO letter, CEO, Kerala has furnished the
inforf#tion received from the EO, Thiruvananthapuram. But, the information furnished by
the DEO, Thiruvananthanuraj is not new. The same information is available in the ,,":1rit",
Report and minutes of the IEUC meeting held on 19.06.2016. As per the DEO's Sfrutiny

Reporl, total Expenditure shown by the candidate is Rs. 25,26,3851- (sl. No. 15 & 19) and

,,, total expenditure recorded in SOR is Rs 25, 95,8621- (s1. No. 19). Hence, the candidate has
\
!
r^
,/
understated Rs. 69,477l- (: Rs. 25,95,862 -Pts.25,26,385). The Commission, vide its letter

date 08.10.2018 has requested the CEO, Kerala to obtain and furnish the certified copies of
the evidences in respect of understatement of Rs. 69,477 l- by the candidate.

,
.l
\! Therefore, we may request the CEO, Kerala to furnish the information/documents
;.' ir'
sought vide the Commission's letter dated S. f ffiO f 8 glorg with the comments of the CEO
..\w
and DEO concerned to the Commission, as per the DFA.

,:S(l]KeJ \f""
 * la
ltcf. Dre-lrage:-

I-)L:(-). Thirrrvananthapuritrr. Kcrala in his Scrrrtinl Reporl has stated in'ruu'l5'

tlrat Sh. K. Ansalan, (it'l(M). re(urned candirlate fronr l-10-Nel'r'attinkara AC,
Kcralit r\ssernblr l'llection.20l(r that totirl crperrrl itrrrc >houn b_r thc retLrrrctl I
i.
candidatc is l{s. 25,2(r,J85/- anrl thc canclitlutc lras urrtlerstated lls. 69,4771-.
",

llorvevrr, I)F)(), 'l'hiruvananthapuranr agreerl rvith the :rccount of tlre returnetl

candidate as pe r his rerlark -tiven irr 'coltrnrn 8' o1'his SLrrinarl [{e port and -rolr' f ]'
o1' his Scrtrtirrr Rcporl. I lou e vcr" as l)t:(). I hirtn,anatrthapLrranr r.]rcnti()ncci
urrcle lstatenrcnl trl- Rs. 69.4llt- in 'r()\\ l()' ol his Scnrtinv llcport" lhcrclirlc.
('onrnrission soLrght,his conrnclrt in this regarcl along ir'ith rclevartl clocunrenls vicle its

lctter clatccl 08.10.2018 firlloiiccl br scvcral nunrbcrs rrf'rcnrinricls ancl DO letter clatcrl
:.
ttl lt.l .l(tltt.
2. \,\iith rcfcrcrrcc to tlre uborre rncutioncd ('onrnrission's D() Icttcr cluteil 01.0.1 .1010"
,v l.t rDgl'l{."r .'1 i.liJ l i a l z- t ,--: ' .',
( I':O. Iierala lra-s sratetl that total ilnrount ol'election c\penscs recorclecl in SOlt is lls.
nr
-]1.13.1195/-. llou'cver'. as per lrrinutes ol'nrecting ol'l)l,ll\I('cornrnitlee ltclcl ort
I'
19.(Xj.l()16. Its.5,38,033/- has becrr tletluctetl ll'onr lol:rl election exl)enses recorrletl !i.l
t.

irr S()l{ l{s. 31,3J,895/- and the cornnritlee l'inirliserl tot:rl ol':tnrount ol'clection
c\l)enscs of the rcturnerl canrlidatc as [{s. 25,95.1i62l-. 'l'he returned cantlitlate has
sholvn his total clection exl)ense as Iis.25,26,3ti5i-. so Aruounl ol'untlcrstatcnrcnl is
Rs. (r9,"177l- lRs. Rs. 25,95.8621- - I{s. 25.26,385/-1. Details ol' abor,e rnentioned
calcrrlaliorr nra,\ bc iccn in nrirrr.rtcs rrl'nrecting ol'I)l:\1('cointttittce lrcld or-r

19.()6.2()16. encl()se(l u ith I)[:O"s Su'utirrr llelrort.

.*
l. As rnenlioned irr thc rrinutcs ol'nrecting ol'D[\4('. hcld oir 19.0(r.]016. carlier

the relurned carrrlitlate w'as shorving total election e.'rpenses Rs.21.86,J-l-l/-. Ilence,
a nolice rlatcrl 1:1.06.201(r u'as scrvctl ugron thc rel urrretl citntlidrtc lly l)l'lO. The
relurltcrl c:urtlitlirte irr his rcplr,rlatetl 17.06.2016. suhrnittetl clcction crpcrtses lLs.
25,2(r.Jft5/-" rccorilecl irr 'r'ou l5' rr1't)F.O's ScrLrtin_r [1c1ro11. 'fhc rcturned cantlidale

requested DtlO to rctlucc the erpentlifure rccordetl in SOR tr1 consitlering (i)
c\ltcnses t0$ards notiecs. l)o\tur'\ cte. l)rinled trr the political pa|t)" (ii; er;rerrses
lotartls lchicles tir rrlrich rrike sarrctiorr rlcllrrcd unil (iii) pre-rronrination erpclrscs.
l)li\l('cornnriltee consirlcrcrl thc rcquesl nurrlc llv the returned c:rnrlitlate itntl
rlecirlerl fo detl uct I{s.5,38,03J/- frorrr total elcctir)n crl)r:nses rccortletl in SOlt Rs.
ll.3l.tt95/- irnrl linirlisetl totnl election c\t)enscs of thc relurned czrnrlitlatc as lls.
25,95.8(r2l- anrl accepterl.
 _ tr_-
Froln lrre-ltagc;-

-i we are dealing u'ith the accoLurts eases ilr pLu'sLrance ot'prclceclLrr-e laicl dgrv, i'
('ircular-datcd ?',,1 .l rrne. 2016. \€,..
Para 5 ,f Circular clated 2,,,1 .iune, 2016 read :rs under:
i 0 "5' I/'the DEO (tgree,\ v'ith llte (rccoltnt.\ .rstr,
of election e4:tentlilurc Lt.\, per )) ,1 tltc
DEO":; '\c'rulirt.t; Reprtrt. thcn no firrlher uctiotr lo be ttrken unla,s',y rltcte i,s firrthcr ct,itlatrt.L,
rtr c'ottt1tIrrin1. "

6' In this case' as DEo. ThirLtvananthapuranr a-sreed rvith rhe accolrnt

ol tlre rcttrr.cil
candidate 'rherefirre" accoLlllt o1'Sh. K. Ansalan- CPI(M). r'etLrrncrJ
cancliclate lrrln iilr
Nel""itttirlliara AC'- Kerzrla Asserrbl,r Election.20l6. rna-r,tre
accepted ancl the case r,er lrc
c Iosecl.

A-44---*
L't6 If ffi tr'l'
/r
"/ r-e. a74r,-'s*r {1.
_ + fi: t. \

D* c (caw)

,ffi',
 -!6 -
;r-r
1.
ii
Sl. No. l0 (R)
PIJC is DO Ietter dated 19.03.2020 of C'lro I(erala rrith ret'erence to ('onrntis\i()ir'.
DO letter dated 0-1.03)OZO. CEO's Report in respect o1'account of'election e.\penses or

Adv. I. B. Satheesh, CPI(N{). returned candidate fionr 138-l(attalikada AC, Kerala

!"t'" -
Legislative Assernbll'Election,20l(r rnav be perused along u,ith minutes of D[i\,1(]
meeting lrelcl on 19.06.2016.

Total arrount of electiou expenses shorvn b1,'the candidate is: Rs. 22,12.50t11-

Total arnount of election expenses recorded in SOR was: Rs.35,13,145/-

Anrour.rt decided bl, DEMC to cledLrct from SOR is : Rs. 7,68,7011-

Total arroLrnt ol election expeuses finalised bI DEMC comnrittce is - I{s. 27,11.1111-

l:l{s.35.11"1+,i,'- - I{s. 7.6ti.7()-1 -i

2. DEO, Thiruvanantltapuranr agreed rvith the account ol'election expenses.s.ultrnittt'tl
by the cancliclate 3S |g1'DEO': S.rLItint! Report dated 17.08.2017 (Rorv rro.22)antl D[:O'r
-,1
Surrrnan Report dated I 7.08.20 1 7 (Column no. 8).
3. Fronr the afbresaid calcLrlation.,,re ir3) conclude that DEMC corrmittee lrrralised total
election expenses at Rs. 27.41.111 - ulrich is rvithin the prescribed ceiling linrit ol'Rs. 28
Lal<h. Tlie candidate has slrorin his total election expenses at Rs. 22,12,5001. So. thei'c is

runderstaternent of Rs. 5.3 1 .9+ I - [:Rs ]7.-++.-++ I i- -' Rs. 12. 11.,50() - I l)EO,
Thiruvananthapuram :rgreerl x ith the :lccount of the crrntlidtte.
4. We are dealing u ith the accounts cases ol candiclates in pursirance of'proceclLrrc Iaicl

clorrn irr Circular tlated f "'l .lrrric. lUl6.

Puru 5 o.f'Circulur dtttcrl 2''" .ltrtte, 2l)16 rerrrl u.; uttdcr:-
"-t. I/ the DEO ugt'cc.\'tli/h /ha (tcc'outlt.\'of elec'lion axltctttlilrtt'c (t.\ l)ct' /'.)ri -'*' of tlt,'

DEO'.,;,\crutinlt Report, thcn no.furlher crclion lct be loken rrnle.s.s tlttrc i.s.fitrthr:t'ai,ititttt'i',tt'
contplctinl . "

5. ln this case. as DE,O. l-hirLrvananthapLrranr agreed u,ith the account ol'the retLrrnetl

candidate. l'herefbre. accoLrnt of Aclv. I. B. Satheesh. CPI(M). retLrrnecl candiclate fl'orn

rr.lJd-....'..1 l38-Kattakkada AC, Kerala Legisl:rtive Assembly'Iilection,20l6. rnal,be acceptecl anri

the case ma1' be closed.

I E tr)
;A u-'-''"--#
D..ll t