High Court Kerala High Court

K.Bharathan vs State Election Commission on 30 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Bharathan vs State Election Commission on 30 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24867 of 2010(G)


1. K.BHARATHAN, OME NIVAS, POOVATHUR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER

3. TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :30/08/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.P.(C) No. 24867 of 2010-G
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the shifting of one of the polling

booths in ward No.l3 of Patyam Panchayat from Cheruvancherry U.P.

School to Poovathur Palam Anganvadi. According to the petitioner, it was

done purely due to political pressure exerted by one political party and no

justifiable reasons are there.

2. In ward No.13, according to the petitioner, two polling booths

were located at Cheruvancherry U.P. School which were convenient to all

the voters. For fixing of polling booths, a meeting was held. A proposal

was submitted by one Shri Prabhakaran, for shifting of one of the polling

booths from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathur New L.P. School

based on the distance. It was enquired through the Tahsildar, Thalassery

and Ext.P1 is the report of enquiry. The second respondent convened a

meeting on 30.7.2010 for settling the dispute and thereafter a decision was

taken to shift one booth pertaining to Div.No.II to Poovathur Palam

Anganvadi. It is pointed out that the same is unsustainable.

3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the representation submitted by the

wpc 24867/2010 2

petitioner before the second respondent and Ext.P3 is the copy of a mass

petition.

4. On behalf of the State Election Commission, a statement has been

filed. It is pointed out that Section 45 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act

makes provision for polling stations and no specific norm is provided

therein for fixing polling stations. It only mentions that there should be

sufficient number of polling stations for every Panchayat and that the list of

polling stations shall be published with previous approval of the State

Election Commission. The State Election Commission has issued detailed

guidelines to all District Election Officers for setting up of polling stations.

5. It is explained that a meeting of the political parties was

convened on 30.7.2010 in the chambers of the District Collector. Annexure

A is the photo copy of the minutes of the said meeting. In the said meeting

it was decided to shift polling station No.2 from Cheruvancherry U.P.

School to Poovathurpalam Anganvadi considering the convenience of the

voters to reach the polling station. Annexure B is the letter forwarded to the

Election commission in that regard.

6. It is therefore stated that a final decision was taken as per the

consensus arrived at in the meeting. Learned counsel for the Election

Commission submitted that the political party to which the petitioner

wpc 24867/2010 3

belongs, was also represented in the meeting and no objections were raised

in the matter. The consensus was arrived at for shifting and the petitioner

cannot reagitate the same in this writ petition. It is clear that the political

party to which the petitioner belongs, was represented before the District

Collector during the meeting. Even though it is contended in para 10 of the

writ petition that the shifting of booth was opposed by the B.J.P., the said

plea goes against the contents of the minutes of the meeting and it doesn’t

show that any such objection was raised. Further, the person who has

represented B.J.P in the meeting, has not disputed the deliberations of the

meeting before any forum as no pleadings to that effect is there in the writ

petition and he is not a party to the writ petition also. Evidently, the

petitioner had not participated in the meeting. Therefore, he cannot dispute

the veracity of the contents of Annexure A.

7. What is provided in Section 45 of the Act is only that there should

be sufficient number of polling stations for every Panchayat. Evidently, the

District Collector had convened a meeting of all the political parties and on

the basis of the consensus arrived at, a decision was taken to shift one

polling station from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathurpalam

Anganvadi, based on the facility of the voters to travel to the polling

station. This cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary on any score.

wpc 24867/2010 4

8. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the order passed

by the second respondent fixing the polling booth, in the absence of any

violation of the statutory provisions. The writ petition is therefore

dismissed. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/