IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27264 of 2010(G) 1. SHAMNAD.S, AGED 27 YEARS ... Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION, REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Dated :25/09/2010 O R D E R P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 27264, 27280, 27940 & 28088 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T
A common question arises in these writ petitions. They
were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010:-
2. The petitioner in this writ petition is a resident of
Peringamala Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District. He
belongs to the Kani tribe which is recognised as a scheduled tribe in
the State of Kerala. Article 243-D of the Constitution of India and the
provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Act’ for short, provide for the reservation of seats in
various levels of Panchayats and office of President of Panchayats at
various levels in favour of candidates belonging to the scheduled
castes, the scheduled tribes and also women. Section 153 (3)(a) of
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, stipulates that the offices of
President of Village Panchayats, Block Panchayats and District
Panchayats in the State shall be reserved by the Government for the
scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes and the number of the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
2
offices of President reserved for the scheduled castes and the
scheduled tribes in the Panchayats at each level in the State shall
bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of
offices of President at each level as the population of the scheduled
castes in the State or of the scheduled tribes in the State bears to the
total population of the State. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section
153 provides that 50% each of the total number of offices of
President of Village Panchayats, Block Panchayats and District
Panchayats in the State reserved under clause (a) and 50% each of
the total number of offices of President of Village Panchayats, Block
Panchayats and District Panchayats in the State, not so reserved, shall
be reserved by the Government for women. Clause (a) of sub-
section (4) of section 153 of the Act stipulates that the offices of the
President reserved under sub-section (3) shall be allotted to every
level of Panchayat in the different districts by the State Election
Commission by notification in the Gazette. Clause (b) of sub-section
(4) of section 153 of the Act stipulates that in the case of Block
Panchayats and Village Panchayats, the office of President reserved
for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes shall be allotted
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
3
proportionate to their population in the respective districts. Clause
(c) of sub-section (4) of section 153 stipulates that in the case of
Village Panchayats, the reserved seats in each district shall be
distributed among the Village Panchayats within the area of the
various Block Panchayats in the district. Clause (d) of sub-section (4)
of section 153 stipulates that before issuing the notification for
General Election, the State Election Commission shall allot by rotation
the reserved seats under clause (a), (b) and (c) and the rotation shall
start from the Panchayat in which the scheduled castes, or the
scheduled tribes or women have the largest percentage of population
and then passed on to the next Panchayat having their largest
percentage of population and so on.
3. In the elections to the local bodies held for the first
time after the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was enacted, the
office of President of Vithura Grama Panchayat in Vellanad Block
Panchayat of Thiruvananthapuram District was reserved for the
scheduled tribes. In the elections held during the year 2000, there
was no reservation of the office of President of Grama Panchayat in
favour of the scheduled tribes in the whole of Thiruvananthapuram
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
4
District. In the next elections, viz., during 2005, the office of
President of Tholicode Grama Panchayat in Vellanad Block
Panchayat (the very same Block Panchayat of which Vithura Grama
Panchayat is also a part) was reserved in favour of the scheduled
tribes. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is
that in the ensuing elections, viz., elections scheduled to be held in
October 2010, the office of President of Vithura Grama Panchayat has
again been reserved for the scheduled tribes by Ext.P1 notification
dated 26.8.2010 published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra ordinary)
dated 26.8.2010. It is contended that the State Election Commission
ought to have reserved the office of President applying clause (d) of
sub-section (4) of Section 154 of the Act by rotation among the
various Grama Panchayats in Thiruvananthapuram District and that
instead they have confined the reservation only to Panchayats in
Vellanad Block Panchayat. The petitioner contends that the decision
taken by the State Election Commission to reserve the office of
President of Vithura Grama Panchayat for the scheduled tribes is
arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that
applying the rule of rotation stipulated in section 153(4)(d) of the Act,
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
5
the office of the President of Peringamala Grama Panchayat in
Vamanapuram Block Panchayat should have been reserved in favour
of the scheduled tribes.
W.P.(C) No.27264 of 2010
4. The petitioner herein is a resident of Vithura Grama
Panchayat. In this writ petition wherein contentions similar to those
in W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010 are raised, the petitioner contends that
the reservation of the office of President of Vithura Grama Panchayat
in favour of the scheduled tribes is arbitrary and illegal. The factual
details are as set out in W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010 and are therefore,
not set out separately.
W.P.(C) No.27940 of 2010
5. The petitioner herein is a resident of Chithra Grama
Panchayat in Kollam District. Chithra Grama Panchayat is one among
the eight Grama Panchayats in Chadayamangalam Block. During the
elections held in the year 1995, the office of President of Chithra
Grama Panchayat was not reserved in favour of either women
candidates or the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes.
However, in the next elections, viz., the elections held in the year
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
6
2000, the office of President of Chithra Grama Panchayat was
reserved in favour of the scheduled castes. In the next elections,
viz., the elections held during 2005, the office of President was
reserved in favour of women candidates. In the ensuing elections,
the office of President of Chithra Grama Panchayat is reserved for the
scheduled castes. The notification issued by the State Election
Commission in that regard and published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra
ordinary) dated 26.8.2010 is under challenge in this writ petition. The
petitioner contends that the percentage of population of the scheduled
castes in Chithra Grama Panchayat is 13.70 and that as the office of
President of Chithra Grama Panchayat was reserved during the year
2000 in favour of the scheduled castes and during the year 2005 in
favour of women candidates, in the ensuing elections, the office of
President of Elamad Grama Panchayat, the additional third
respondent in the writ petition, should have been reserved for the
scheduled castes. The petitioner contends that the rotation
contemplated in section 153(4)(d) of the Act is among the various
Panchayats in Malappuram Districts and that the State Election
Commission has not applied the rotation correctly. On this ground, the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
7
petitioner challenges the reservation of the office of President of
Chithra Grama Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes.
W.P.(C) No.28088 of 2010
6. The petitioner herein is a resident of Mankada Grama
Panchayat in Malappuram District. It is stated that in the elections
held in the year 2000, the office of President of Mankada Grama
Panchayat was reserved in favour of the scheduled castes, in the
elections held in the year 2005, the office of President was reserved in
favour of women candidates and that in the ensuing elections, the
office of President of Mankada Grama Panchayat has again been
reserved in favour of the scheduled castes. The petitioner contends
that the State Election Commission erred in successively reserving
the office of President of Mankada Grama Panchayat in favour of the
scheduled castes, and therefore, the notification issued by the State
Election Commission in that regard is liable to be set aside. It is
contended that the office of President of Koottilangadi Grama
Panchayat or Makkaraparamba Grama Panchayat ought to have been
reserved applying the rule of rotation contemplated in clause (d) of
sub-section (4) of section 153 of the Act.
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
8
7. In all these cases, the State Election Commission has
filed separate statements. As regards the Vithura Grama Panchayat,
it is stated that the Government had reserved one office of President
of Grama Panchayat in the whole of Thiruvananthapuram District in
favour of the scheduled tribes as per G.O.(MS) No.155/10/LSGD
dated 22.7.2010; that the total number of offices of President thus
reserved in Thiruvananthapuram district in favour of various
categories including the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and
women candidates was 14; that out of the 11 Block Panchayats in
Thiruvananthapuram, Vellanad Block Panchayat consisting of 8 Grama
Panchayats is having the highest percentage of scheduled tribe
population and therefore, for the purpose of reserving the office of
President of Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District in
favour of the scheduled tribes, Vellanad Block Panchayat was chosen.
It is further stated that since Vithura Grama Panchayat has the
highest percentage of scheduled tribe population in that Block
Panchayat and the office of President of Vithura Grama Panchayat
had not been reserved for the scheduled tribes during the elections
held in the year 2005 a decision was taken by the State Election
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
9
Commission to reserve the office of President of Vithura Grama
Panchayat for the scheduled tribes in the ensuing elections. With
reference to Mankada Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District and
Chithra Grama Panchayat in Kollam District, similar contentions are
raised. In other words, from a reading of the statements filed by the
State Election Commission, it is evident that the State Election
Commission has not identified the Grama Panchayat in which office of
President has to be reserved either in favour of scheduled castes or
the scheduled tribes having regard to the population of the scheduled
castes or the scheduled tribes, as the case may be, in the various
Grama Panchayats of the revenue district.
8. I heard Sri.G.Ram Mohan, Sri.M.R.Rajesh,
Sri.T.R.Harikumar and Sri.K.Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions,
Smt.K.R.Deepa, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State
of Kerala, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission, Sri.V.Rajendran
(Perumbavoor), learned counsel appearing for the Vithura Grama
Panchayat and Sri.M.Dinesh, the learned counsel appearing for the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
10
Peringamala Grama Panchayat. I have also considered the pleadings
and the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that as the Election Commission has admittedly not
followed the stipulations in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (4) of
Section 153 of the Act while identifying the Grama Panchayat, the
office of President of which is to be reserved either in favour of the
scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes, the decision taken by the
Commission is liable to be set aside as it is one made in violation of
the statutory provisions. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New
Delhi and Another v. K.S.Jagannathan and Another (1986 (2)
SCC 679), Sri.M.R.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010 contended that where a public authority
has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion
conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the
Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on
irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations
and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of
conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
11
discretion has been conferred, this Court exercising jursidcition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can in a fit and proper case
compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the
discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and
in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the
concerned parties, this Court can itself pass an order or give
directions which the Government or the public authority should have
passed. He submitted that if that be so, in an area where the Election
Commission has no discretion, the Commission cannot take shelter
under the plea that its decision should not be interfered with as it will
result in unsettling the election schedule.
9. Per contra, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission
contended, relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this
Court in Viswanath B. v. The State of Kerala and others (ILR
2002 (1) Kerala 42) that in the absence of any allegation of
favouritism or malafides, as the State Election Commission has
followed a uniform procedure through the State, the decision of the
Election Commission should not be interfered with. The learned
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
12
counsel for the State Election Commission also contended that the
reservation in the instant cases does not amount to successive
reservation to the same category of candidates.
10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar
by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The short question
that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the procedure
adopted by the State Election Commission for identifying the Grama
Panchayats in which the office of President is to be reserved is illegal.
Sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 153 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994 which are relevant for the purpose of these cases are
extracted below for easy reference.
“Section 153. Election of President and
Vice-President:-
(1)—————
(2)—————
(3)(a) The offices of President of Village
Panchayats, Block Panchayats and District
Panchayats in the State shall be reserved by the
Government for the Scheduled castesand the
Schedued tribes and the number of the offices
of President reserved for Scheduled castesand
the Scheduled tribes in the Panchayats at each
level in the State shall bear, as nearly as may
be, the same proportion to the total number of
offices of President at each level as the
population of the Scheduled castesin the State
or of the Scheduled tribes in the State bears toW.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
13
the total population of the State:
(b)(i) [Fifty percent (in the case of
fraction it shall be fixed to the next higher
integer)] each of the total number of offices of
President of Village Panchayats, Block
Panchayats and District Pachayats in the State
reserved under clause (a); and
(ii)[Fifty percent (in the case of fraction it
shall be fixed to the next higher integer)] each
of the total number of offices of President of
Village Panchayats, Block Panchayats and
District Panchayats in the State, not so
reserved, shall be reserved by the Government,
for women.
(4)(a) The offices of the President
reserved under sub-section (3) shall be allotted
to every level of the Panchayat in the different
districts by the State Election Commission by
notification in the Gazette.
(b) In the case of Block Panchayats and
Village Panchayats the reserved seats for the
Scheduled castesand Scheduled tribes shall be
allotted proportionate to their population in the
respective districts.
(c) In the case of Village Panchayat, the
reserved seats in each district shall be
distributed among the Village Panchayats
within the area of the various Block Panchayats
in the district.
(d) Before issuing notification for General
election, the State Election Commission shall
allot by rotation the reserved seats under
clause (a), (b) and (c) and the rotation shall
start from the Panchayat in which the
scheduled castes, or the scheduled tribes or
women have the largest percentage of
population and then passed on to the next
Panchayat having their largest percentage of
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
14
population and so on:
(e) In the case of an election to the office
of the President reserved for Scheduled
castesor Scheduled tribes, a member, if he is
not a person elected from a seat reserved for
Scheduled castesor Scheduled tribes as the
case may be, shall not be eligible for Election to
the office of the President, unless he produces
before the Returning Officer a community
certificate issued by a competent officer stating
that he is a member of the Scheduled casteor
Scheduled tribe;
(f) A member elected to the office of the
President reserved for Scheduled castesor
Scheduled tribes who has been proved under
the Kerala ( Scheduled castesand Scheduled
tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community
Certificate Act, 1996 (11 of 1996) or under any
other law for the time being in force, that he
does not belong to Scheduled casteor
Scheduled tribe, as the case may be, and
declared as such he shall not be entitled to
continue in office of the President from the date
of such declaration and his membership shall
stand forfeited and the State Election
Commission shall declare the offices of the
President and the member to be vacant.]
Provided that where the Panchayat the
office of President of which is to be reserved for
women and the Scheduled castesand Scheduled
tribes is one and the same; in so reserving the
Office of President, preference shall be given to
the Scheduled castesor Scheduled tribes and in
lieu, the office of the President in the
Panchayat next having their largest percentage
population of women shall be reserved for
women:
Provided further that in Panchayats the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
15
office of President of which is reserved for the
Scheduled casteor Scheduled tribes, those in
which the women have the more percentage of
population of women shall be reserved for
women belonging to them:
Provided also that the office of President
of any Panchayat shall be reserved for the
scheduled castesor scheduled tribes or women
belonging to them only if at least one
constituency of that Panchayat is reserved for
that category.
11. There is no dispute that applying sub-section(3) of
section 153 of the Act, the Government have decided to reserve one
office of President of Grama Panchayat in the whole of
Thiruvananthapuram District in favour of the scheduled tribes.
Likewise, there is no dispute regarding the number of the offices of
President of Grama Panchayat reserved by the Government in favour
of the scheduled castes in Malappuram and Kollam Districts. Sub-
section (4) of section 153 of the Act sets out the manner in which the
office of President reserved by the Government under sub-section (3)
of section 153 of the Act has to be allotted to every level of Panchayat
in the different districts by the State Election Commission. Clause (b)
of sub-section (4) of Section 153 states that in the case of Block
Panchayats and in the case of Village Panchayats, the offices reserved
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
16
for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes shall be allotted
proportionate to their population in the respective districts. Clause (c)
of sub-section (4) of section 153 states that in the case of Village
Panchayats, the reserved seats in each district shall be distributed
among the Village Panchayats within the area of various Block
Panchayats in the district. From a reading of clauses (b) and (c) of
sub-section (4) of section 153, it is evident that in the case of Village
Panchayats, when the Government have reserved a particular number
of offices of President of Village Panchayat either in favour of the
scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes, the State Election
Commission is bound to allot the seats having regard to the
population of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes, as the
case may be, in the respective districts. Clause (c) clarifies the
position by reiterating that the reserved offices in each district shall
be distributed among the Village Panchayats within the area of various
Block Panchayats. In my opinion, the effect of clauses (b) and (c)
of sub-section (4) of section 153 of the Act is that the offices of
President of Grama Panchayats reserved for the scheduled castes and
the scheduled tribes shall be distributed among the various Grama
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
17
Panchayats within the revenue district. The first proviso to sub-
section (4) of section 153 stipulates that where the Panchayat the
office of President of which is to be reserved for women and the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is one and the same; in so
reserving the Office of President, preference shall be given to the
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and in lieu, the office of the
President in the Panchayat next having their largest percentage
population of women shall be reserved for women. The second
proviso stipulates that in Panchayats, the office of President of which
is reserved for the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes, those in which
the women have the more percentage of population shall be reserved
for scheduled caste women or scheduled tribe women, as the case
may be. The third proviso stipulates that such reservation in favour of
the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or women belonging to the
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes shall be made only if at least one
constituency of that Panchayat is reserved for that category. The
State Election Commission was therefore, in my opinion, bound to
allot the offices of President of Grama Panchayat reserved for the
scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes having regard to the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
18
percentage of population of the scheduled castes and the scheduled
tribes in the various Grama Panchayats in the revenue district, guided
by the three privosos to sub-section (4) of Section 153 of the Act.
12. In the instant case, it is evident from Annexure-E
worksheet produced in W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010 that the Grama
Panchayat having the highest percentage of population of scheduled
tribes is Vithura Grama Panchayat (12.31%). The next highest
percentage of population of scheduled tribes is in Peringamala Grama
Panchayt (12.22%). The Peringamala Grama Panchayat is impleaded
as the additional third respondent in W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2010 and
the Vithura Grama Panchayat is impleaded as the additional fourth
respondent in W.P.(C) No.27264 of 2010. The State Election
Commission has, in my opinion, by reserving the office of President of
Vithura Grama Panchayat for the scheduled tribes acted in violation
of the stipulations contained in clause (d) of sub-section 4 of section
153 of the Act. It did not rotate the office of President reserved in
favour of the scheduled tribes among the various Panchayats in
Thiruvananthapuram district having regard to the percentage of
population of the scheduled tribes in the respective Panchayats. In
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
19
such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the reservation of
the office of President of Vithura Grama Panchayat in favour of the
scheduled tribes cannot be sustained.
13. It is brought to my notice that the State Election
Commission has taken steps to notify the elections and that the
notification will be issued on 27.9.2010. By virtue of the directions
issued by a Division Bench of this Court, the elections will have to be
completed before 1.11.2010. In view of the admitted factual position
and the fact that the Peringamala Grama Panchayat which is
represented by counsel has no objection to the office of President of
that Grama Panchayat being reserved in favour of the scheduled
tribes, I am of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to any of
the parties and the election process will not also be stalled if, while
notifying the elections, the State Election Commission reserves the
office of President of Peringamala Grama Panchayat for the scheduled
tribes. The State Election Commission can also issue a corrigendum
notification suitably amending Notification No.214/2010/SEC dated
26.8.2010 published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated
26.8.2010. I accordingly allow W.P.(C) Nos.27264 of 2010 and 27280
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
20
of 2010, quash Ext.P2 notification dated 26.8.2010 produced in W.P.
(C) No.27280 of 2010 to the extent it reserves the office of President
of Vithura Grama Panchayat in favour of the scheduled tribes and
direct the State Election Commission to reserve the office of
President of Peringamala Grama Panchayat for the scheduled tribes.
The Election Commission shall issue the election notification
incorporating the above changes and shall also issue a corrigendum
notification in the Gazette suitably amending Notification No.
214/2010/SEC dated 26.8.2010 published in the Kerala Gazette
(Extra Ordinary) dated 26.8.2010.
14. I shall now deal with W.P.(C) No.28088 of 2010
which relates to Mankada Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District.
Mankada Grama Panchayat is a constituency in Mankada Block
Panchayat which consists of 6 Grama Panchayats. Malappuram
Revenue District consists of 100 Grama Panchayats and 15 Block
Panchayats. The reservation of the office of President of Mankada
Grama Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes is under challenge
in this writ petition. Going by the worksheet produced by the State
Election Commission, the highest percentage of population of the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
21
scheduled caste is in Thiruvali Grama Panchayat in Wandoor Block
Panchayat (21.15%). The next highest percentage of population of
the scheduled castes is in Thavanur Grama Panchayat in Ponnani
Block Panchayat (15.7%). The office of President of Thavanoor
Grama Panchayat has been reserved in favour of Women candidates
but the office of President of Thiruvali Grama Panchayat has not been
reserved in favour of the women or the scheduled castes or the
scheduled tribes. It is evident from the work sheet produced by the
State Election Commission that there are Panchayats other than
Mankada Grama Panchayat having a much higher percentage of
population of the scheduled castes. It has therefore to be necessarily
held that the State Election Commission has not correctly applied the
rule of rotation while reserving the office of President of Mankada
Grama Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes. The provisions of
section 153 of the Act do not envisage the Panchayats being heard or
put on notice before the office of President is reserved in favour of
either the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes or women
candidates. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the State
Election Commission should re-examine the issue and reserve the
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
22
office of President of a Grama Panchayat other than Mankada Grama
Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes based on the percentage
of population of the scheduled castes in the various Grama
Panchayats in Malappuram District. The Commission shall undertake
the above exercise and issue a corrigendum notification amending
Notification No.214/2010/SEC dated 26.8.2010, published in the
Kerala Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 26.8.2010. The revised decision
will necessarily have to be reflected in the Election Notification which
the Commission will be issuing on 27.9.2010. I accordingly allow W.P.
(C) No.28088 of 2010 and quash the decision taken by the State
Election Commission to reserve the office of President of Mankada
Grama Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes. The Commission
shall re-examine the issue and identify another Grama Panchayat
having regard to the population of the scheduled castes in the various
Grama Panchayats in Malappuram District after ascertaining whether
the office of President of such other Grama Panchayats has already
been reserved in favour of other categories eligible for reservation,
viz., the scheduled tribes and women candidates. The Election
Commission shall issue the election notification incorporating its
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
23
revised decision and shall also issue a corrigendum notification in the
Gazette suitably amending Notification No. 214/2010/SEC dated
26.8.2010 published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated
26.8.2010.
15. I shall now deal with W.P.(C) No.27940 of 2010 which
relates to Chithra Grama Panchayat in Kollam district. It is evident
from the worksheet produced by the State Election Commission in
respect of Kollam district that there are Panchayats other than
Chithra Grama Panchayat having a higher percentage of population of
the scheduled castes. The worksheet shows that Ariyankavu Grama
Panchayat in Anchal Block Panchayat has the highest percentage of
population of scheduled castes (23.73%), Kulathurpuzha Grama
Panchayat in Anchal Block Panchayat has the second highest
population (21.4%) of scheduled castes and Elamad Grama
Panchayat in Chadayamangalam Block Panchayat has the third
highest population (13.47%) of scheduled castes. The office of
President of Ariyankavu Grama Panchayat has been reserved in favour
of the scheduled castes (women), but the office of President of
Kulathurpuzha Grama Panchayat in Anchal Block Panchayat and
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
24
Elamad Grama Panchayat in Chadayamangalam Block Panchayat have
not been reserved in favour of any category of candidates. It is thus
evident that that the State Election Commission has not identified
the Grama Panchayat in which the office of President has to be
reserved in favour of the scheduled castes having regard to the
population of the scheduled castes in the various Grama Panchayats
of the revenue district. No reasons are also forthcoming as to why
notwithstanding the availability of other Grama Panchayats having a
larger percentage of population of the scheduled castes, the office of
President of Chithra Grama Panchayat was reserved in favour of
scheduled castes. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, the
Commission should re-examine the issue and reserve the office of
President of a Grama Panchayat other than Chithra Grama Panchayat
in favour of the scheduled castes, based on the percentage of
population of the scheduled castes in the various Grama Panchayats in
Kollam District. The Commission shall undertake the above exercise
and issue a corrigendum notification amending Notification
No.214/2010/SEC dated 26.8.2010, published in the Kerala Gazette
(Extra ordinary) dated 26.8.2010. The revised decision will necessarily
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
25
have to be reflected in the Election Notification which the Commission
will be issuing on 27.9.2010. I accordingly allow W.P.(C) No.27940
of 2010 and quash the decision taken by the State Election
Commission to reserve the office of President of Chithra Grama
Panchayat in favour of the scheduled castes. The Commission shall
re-examine the issue and identify another Grama Panchayat having
regard to the population of the scheduled castes in the various Grama
Panchayats in Kollam District after ascertaining whether the office of
President of such other Grama Panchayats has already been reserved
in favour of other categories eligible for reservation, viz., the
scheduled tribes and women candidates. The Election Commission
shall issue the election notification incorporating its revised decision
and shall also issue a corrigendum notification in the Gazette suitably
amending Notification No. 214/2010/SEC dated 26.8.2010 published
in the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 26.8.2010.
The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. The
Registry is directed to issue certified copies of the judgment to the
learned counsel on both sides, if applied for, today itself.
W.P.(C) No.27264/2010 etc.
26
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
nj.