IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22852 of 2010(F)
1. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT ELECTORAL AND REGISTRATION
... Respondent
2. KAVALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22852 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.5 in the Kavalangad
Grama Panchayath. In the previous election held in the year
2005, there were 17 wards in the said Panchayath and now a
new ward namely, Thadikulam is formed for which 133 families
from the old Ward No.5 (Vallanchira) and 133 families from old
Ward No.6 (Akolichal) and 130 families from old Ward No.4
(Oonnukal) were grouped together.
2. The petitioner’s contention is that for the last three
consecutive elections, they were under a reserved ward.
Therefore, he has filed a representation before the District
Collector to exclude the present ward from the process of fixing
the reserved ward.
3. The petitioner is relying upon the general guidelines
issued by the Election Commission as per Exhibit P2 in this regard
wherein it is provided that the wards which were reservation
W.P.(C) No.22852/2010 2
wards for the last election held in 2005 will automatically be
converted as general wards and the reservation ward for the
coming election will be selected from the general wards in the
last election.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the
1st respondent wherein it is pointed out that only 17.5% of the
population of the erstwhile ward No.5 (reserved ward) has come
to the newly constituted Thadikulam ward. The rest of the
population in the newly constituted ward were in general ward
during the last election. The fact that 133 families in the
erstwhile ward No.5 were in reserved ward in the earlier election
is admitted in the statement. The guidelines relied upon by the
petitioner also emphasize the fact that to exempt one of the
wards which was treated as a reserved ward in the earlier
election, at least 50% of the population of the reserved ward
should be included in the newly formed ward pursuant to the
delimitation process. This is clear from paragraph 1 of
Exhibit P2. It is also mentioned that if the population is less than
50%, such wards can be included when lots are taken for fixing
W.P.(C) No.22852/2010 3
reserved wards. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned
Standing Counsel for the Election Commission that the grievance
raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by the authority
concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for a direction
to the District Collector to consider the matter in the light of the
guidelines that is prevalent today. The grievance raised by the
petitioner is not one which is covered by the provisions of the
said guidelines also.
In that view of the matter, the inclusion of the new ward, if
any, in the process of fixing the reserved ward cannot be said to
be illegal or against the guidelines issued.
This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp