IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28828 of 2010(C)
1. K.K.BALAN,AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MANOJ,48 YEARS,S/O.KUMARAN,
3. CHIRUTHA,W/O.CHATHU,MOUVANCHERY
4. BHASKARAN,S/O.CHATHU,
39. MANIKOTHU CHIRUTHA,
5. MATHU,D/O.CHATHU,KUZHIACHALIL VEEDU,
6. KUNHIRAMAN,S/O.KANNAN,
40. OTHENKODU MAJEED,
7. POKKAN,S/O.CHOYI,PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU,
41. KUNHIKANDIYIL KUNHIRAMAN,
8. CHATHU,S/O.SANKARAN,MANGATTUMMAL VEEDU,
42. ANANTHOTHU KRISHNAN,
9. ASOKAN,S/O.POKKAN,KUNDUKULANGARA MEETHAL
43. ANANTHOTHU AMMALU AMMA,
44. ANANTHOTHU MADHAVAN,
10. KANNAN,S/O.KORAN,THANIYULLATHIL VEEDU,
45. ANANTHOTHU SANKARAN,
26. KALANKITHAZHEKUNI KANARAN,
46. ANANTHOTHU KUNHIRAMAN,
27. KOYYALAKANDATHIL KUNHIRAMAN,
11. NARAYANI, D/O.ONAKKAN,
19. KORAN,S/O.POKKINAN,PULLUVANANDIYIL
12. CHIRUTHA, W/O.CHOYI, MOUVANCHERY VEEDU,
28. KOYYALAKANDATHIL KUNHIRAMAN,
13. KALYANI, W/O.POKKAN, MOUVANCHERY VEEDU,
20. MADOL CHEERU,W/O.KANNAN,MADOL VEEDU,
29. KUNNATHU KANNAN, S/O.CHEKKOTTY,
21. MADOL BABU,S/O.KANNAN,MADOL VEEDU,
14. KALYANI, W/O.CHOYI,
22. MADOL BALAN,S/O.KANNAN,MADOL VEEDU,
30. MANIKKOTHU NANU, S/O.POKKAN,
15. KANNAN, S/O.ONAKKAN, MOUVANCHERY VEEDU,
31. KUNIYIL KRISHNAN, S/O.KUNKAR,
16. MANDHI, W/O.KANARAN,
23. KOYYALALAKANDATHIL KANARAN,S/O.KUNKAR,
17. LEELA, W/O.BALAN,
24. KELOTHU NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
32. PAVOORTHAZHEKUNI KRISHNAN,
18. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHANDU,
25. KALANKITHAZHEKUNI KUNHIRAMAN,
33. KALANKIYIL ONAKKAN, S/O.POKKAN,
34. AYADAKANDY DEVI,
35. MANIKKOTHU KANARAN,
36. MANIKKOTHU CHATHU, S/O.KANNAN,
37. MANIKKOTHU KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KUPPA,
38. MANIKOTHU KANNAN,
Vs
1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. VELOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/09/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.28828 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who claim to be residents of Velom Grama
Panchayat in Kozhikode Revenue District, have filed this writ
petition seeking the following main reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondent to consider and
pass orders on Exhibits P4, P5, P7 and P9
representations submitted by the
petitioners before finalising the voters’ list.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents to see that
the petitioners are facilitated to cast their
votes in their respective wards in which
they actually reside and delimited as per
Ext.P1, irrespective of the present draft
voters’ list wrongly published.
The petitioners claim that Exts.P4, P5, P7 and P9 are
representations filed by them invoking the power of the State
Election Commission/State Delimitation Commission under
W.P(C).No.28828 of 2010
-:2:-
section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to rectify printing
mistakes in the order made under section 10 or any error therein
arising from an inadvertent slip or omission. A mere reading of the
said representations would indicate that what the petitioners seek is
not the rectification of any printing mistake in the order passed by the
State Delimitation Commission under section 10 or any error therein
arising from an inadvertent slip or omission. In such circumstances
the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
However, a reading of Exts.P4, P5, P7 and P9 would indicate that the
petitioners have got objections regarding the inclusion of the names of
some voters in the voters’ list of various constituencies of Velom
Grama Panchayat. The petitioners have also a grievance that their
names find a place in the electoral roll relating to wards where they
are not ordinarily residing. In my opinion, these are all matters which
the petitioners will have to bring to the notice of the Electoral
Registration Officer by filing appropriate individual applications in the
manner prescribed in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of
Electors) Rules, 1994.
2. The second relief sought is to direct the respondents to see
that the petitioners are facilitated to cast their votes in the respective
wards where they are actually residing. The right to vote is only a
W.P(C).No.28828 of 2010
-:3:-
statutory right and unless the names of the petitioners are included in
the electoral roll of the ward in which they are ordinarily residing, they
cannot exercise that right. Therefore, the grant of the second relief
would depend on the inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the
voters’ lists of the wards where they are ordinarily residing. If the
petitioners have a grievance that their names are not included in the
electoral roll of the wards in which they are ordinarily residing, their
remedy is to move the Electoral Registration Officer seeking
rectification of the mistakes if any in the draft voters’ list and to
include their names in the respective wards where they are ordinarily
residing. In such circumstances the said relief also cannot be granted.
I accordingly hold that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners
cannot be granted as such. The writ petition fails and is dismissed
with the observation that if the petitioners have any grievance
regarding the inclusion of the names of any ineligible voters in the
voters list of the respective wards in which they are ordinarily
residing, it will be open to them to initiate appropriate proceedings
seeking deletion of such names from the voters’ list in the manner
prescribed in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors)
Rules, 1994. Likewise if the names of the petitioners are not included
in the voters’ list relating to the respective wards where they are
W.P(C).No.28828 of 2010
-:4:-
ordinarily residing, it will be open to them to seek inclusion of their
names by filing appropriate individual applications in that regard
before the Electoral Registration Officer. If the petitioners file such
applications, the Electoral Registration Officer concerned shall take an
appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law before the
publication of the final electoral roll.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.28828 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
17th September, 2010