IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38161 of 2010(U)
1. DEVIKAMANI.K.N, W/O. P.K. MONY
... Petitioner
2. P.K. MONI, S/O. KRISHNAN,
3. MOTHI MONY, S/O. MONY,
Vs
1. THE TAHSILDAR (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
... Respondent
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.38161 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction
commanding the 1st respondent to allow Exts.P8 to P10
applications by including the name of the petitioners in the
Electoral Roll of the Peermedu Assembly Constituency.
Consequential reliefs are also sought for. According to the
petitioners, they submitted Exts.P8 to P10 applications
before the 1st respondent producing Exts.P1 to P7, seeking
their inclusion in the voters list. It is stated that though
they were called for hearing, orders were not passed for
their inclusion. It is complaining of the above, the writ
petition has been filed.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent which says that Exts.P8 to P10 applications
submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the Electoral
Registration Officer on 17.12.2010 for the reason that the
petitioners did not produce the residential certificate,
ration card or other relevant documents to prove that they
were ordinarily residents of the Peerumedu Assembly
W.P (C) No. 38161 of 2010
2
Constituency. Reference is also made by Ext.P6. Further
the claim made by the petitioners that by Exts.P11 to P13
notices of hearing were served at the addresses furnished
by the petitioners is also disputed. It is stated that now the
remedy available to the petitioners is either to make fresh
applications in Form No.6 of the Registration of Electors
Rules 1960 by producing necessary documents to prove
that they are ordinarily residents of Peermedu
Constituency or to file appeal before the District Collector
under Rule 23 of the said Rules. The allegation that the
application has been rejected under the influence of one
Jeswant Lal is also denied by the 1st respondent.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing of the 1st
respondent produced before me the applications made by
the petitioners duly endorsed by the 1st respondent to the
effect that petitioners could not produce the documents to
substantiate their claim.
4. Pleadings in the writ petition show that what
was relied on by the petitioners to substantiate their claims
was Exts.P1 to P6. These documents are the extracts of
W.P (C) No. 38161 of 2010
3
the bank passbook, LPG Diary, residential certificate
issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, order issued by the
Peruvanthanam Grama Panchayat etc. However, from the
endorsement on the applications what is seen is that these
documents were not produced by the petitioner. On the
other hand, according to the 1st respondent, petitioners did
not produce the ration card or residential certificate issued
by the competent authority. Further, referring to
documents available with him, the standing counsel further
submits that the residential certificate earlier issued by the
Secretary of the Panchayat was cancelled by the Panchayat
itself.
5. Evidently therefore, petitioners can succeed
only if they succeed in proving the factual issue that they
are the residents of the place as claimed by them. On
appreciation of the materials produced if the 1st
respondent has rejected the said contention, the remedy
available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal against
such an order. I take this view for the further reason that
it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the factual
W.P (C) No. 38161 of 2010
4
contentions raised by the petitioners in a proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.. Therefore,
leaving it open to the petitioners to place their statutory
remedy or to file fresh applications as stated above, the
writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.A to Judge
W.P (C) No. 38161 of 2010
5