Shamnad.S vs Kerala State Election on 25 September, 2010

0
143
Kerala High Court
Shamnad.S vs Kerala State Election on 25 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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 to

W.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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *