IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26299 of 2010(J)
1. SUBRAMANIYA PILLAI, S/O.SHANMUGHAM
... Petitioner
2. RAMU, S/O.SOMAN NAIR,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :20/09/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------
W.P.(C) No. 26299 OF 2010
---------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
The petitioners herein, who are voters of Kattakada Grama
Panchayat, are aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 communications
issued by the 2nd respondent, who is the Secretary as well as
Electoral Registration Officer.
2. In Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioners have been asked to
show cause as to why action should not be taken against them
under Section 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
3. The dispute herein relates to the applications
submitted under Form 8 by the petitioners objecting to the
inclusion of certain names in the voters list, and for dieletion of
them.
4. The 2nd respondent issued Exts.P2 and P3 stating that
a notice proposing hearing on the matter was given on 1.8.2010,
but, they did not appear or produce any records in support of
the objections.
W.P.(C) No.26299/2010 2
5. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been
filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent also. The learned standing counsel for the
1st respondent submitted that actually on verifying the records it
is seen that the 2nd respondent has not issued the notices
referred to in Exts.P2 and P3. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the
statement these details have been stated and those paragraphs
of the statement filed by the 1st respondent are reproduced for
easy reference.
“5. According to the 2nd respondent, on
scrutiny of the applications it was found that
most of the applications are incomplete and
does not have the address of the objectors
and the details of the entry objected
including the address of the persons whose
names are sought to be deleted. The 2nd
respondent also informed that the Forms
have been filled in a very casual manner and
that it does not even bear the date of the
application. According to the 2nd respondent
when an application for deletion of name of a
voter from the electoral roll is submitted the
same has to be made with responsibility and
the person who seek the deletion of entry in
electoral roll has to give a declaration that
the facts mentioned therein are true and any
person who makes a Statement or declarationW.P.(C) No.26299/2010 3
which is false and which he either knows or
believes to be false or does not believe to be
true is punishable under Section 27 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. According to the
2nd respondent since the applications were
vague no actions were taken on the claims
received under Form No.8.
6. The 2nd respondent has not taken any
decision on the 1111 applications in Form No.8.
The 2nd respondent has not issued the notice
dated 01.08.2010 referred to in Exts.P2 and
P3.”
6. The Commission maintains that Exts.P2 and P3 were
not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submitted that
notices proposing the hearing on 1.8.2010 have not been issued
as stated in Exts.P2 and P3.
7. The same will require fresh notice to be issued, for
conducting due enquiry. Accordingly, Exts.P2 and P3 are
quashed. The learned standing counsel for the Commission
submitted that before the last date for receipt of nomination,
the entire exercise will be completed in accordance with the
W.P.(C) No.26299/2010 4
provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the action thereon
will be finalised after issuing notice to the petitioners, and others
if any.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
ps
.