High Court Kerala High Court

P.V.Krishna Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.V.Krishna Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27189 of 2010(W)


1. P.V.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, TRIVANDRUM.

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

5. THE SECRETARY, EDAKKAKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
                      P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                   -------------------------------

                  W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010

                   -------------------------------

         Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner who is a resident of Ward No.13 of

Edakkad Grama Panchayat in Kannur district has filed this writ

petition challenging Exts.P10, P11, P12 and P13 final voters lists.

He has also sought a direction to the third respondent to

consider Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P14 representations after affording

him an opportunity of being heard.

2. Exts.P4 and P5 are representations submitted by

the petitioner before the District Collector, Kannur, objecting to

the draft delimitation proposal submitted by the Secretary of

Edakkad Grama Panchayat. The State Delimitation Commission

has by order passed on 30.6.2010 finalised the delimitation

proposals for various grama panchayats in Kannur district

including Edakkad Grama Panchayat and the order of the

Delimitation Commission has been published in the Kerala

Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30.6.2010. A learned single Judge

of this Court has in W.P(C) No.23641 of 2010 held that in view

W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010

2

of section 10(3 A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the

bar under Article 243 O of the Constitution of India applies, and

therefore, the order issued by the State Delimitation Commission

finalising the delimitation proposals cannot be called in question

in any Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek

or be granted reliefs in regard to Exs.P4 and P5.

3. Exts.P6 and P14 are representations submitted by

the petitioner before the Secretary of Edakkad Grama Panchayat

wherein he has asked for deletion/inclusion of the names of

voters from Exts.P10 to P13 voters list. The Apex Court has in

Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.KM.Hassan Uzaman (AIR 1985 SC

1233) held that the right to be included in the electoral roll is a

right conferred upon an individual and not upon any political

party. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend

that the name of any particular voter or the names of a group of

voters should be included in the electoral roll in respect of any

particular constituency of Edakkad Grama Panchayat.

Therefore, that part of the relief also cannot be granted. As

W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010

3

regards exclusion of names from the voters lists on the ground

that names have been wrongly included in the voters lists of

different constituencies, the law provides that in respect of each

individual voter, separate applications for deletion of the name

from the voters list have to be submitted to the Electoral

Registration Officer. Such an application can be filed only by a

voter of the constituency. The petitioner who is a resident and

voter of Ward No.13 can therefore make such an application

only in respect of voters in that constituency. In Exts.P6 and P4,

he has sought for the exclusion of names of voters from various

other constituencies also. Therefore, for that reason also, the

petitioner cannot seek a direction to the third respondent to

consider his objections to Exts.P10 to P13 voters list.

For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no

merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

nj.