IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23564 of 2010(U)
1. VIJU M.THANKACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. E.K.SURESH, S/O.KUNJUNJU,
Vs
1. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER/
3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 23564 of 2010-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner herein is a voter from Ward No.16 of Adoor
Municipality and the second petitioner is a Councillor of the said
Municipality. The first petitioner is residing in ward No.16 and the second
petitioner is residing in ward No.17 and both wards have been declared as
women wards this time. It is contended that the petitioners have filed
Exts.P2 and P3 objections in the matter. The petitioners contended that the
wards were selected by lots which is not a common practice and there is no
real criteria for declaring reservation of wards also. It is further pointed out
that from 1995 onwards ward Nos.10 and 19 are continuing as general
wards. Ward No.16 was originally ward No.12 and it was a women ward.
But subsequently it was made a general ward and thereafter it was a
scheduled caste general ward and now it is a women ward. Ward No.17
which was originally ward No.14, was reserved for scheduled castes, then it
was a women ward and again it has become women ward.
2. In the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is
explained that ward No.16, Anantharamapuram, is formed with the areas
wpc 23564/2010 2
comprised under erstwhile ward No.12. The erstwhile ward No.12 was
reserved for Scheduled Caste and thus it was initially exempted from the lot
for selection of reserved wards for Adoor Municipality. The total number
of wards for Adoor Municipality is 28 out of which, 14 seats are reserved
for women including 2 seats reserved for scheduled caste women. Thus, 15
wards have to go to reserved categories. Only 14 of the newly constituted
wards were general wards earlier. Therefore, exempting the other 14
wards which were erstwhile reserved wards, for selecting the present 15
reserved seats, lots were taken from the 14 erstwhile general wards, but one
more ward was required for filling up the required number of seats reserved
for reserved category. The deficiency of reserved ward occurred in the
category of women. This had to be taken from one of the 14 wards which
were initially exempted being erstwhile reservation wards. Initially, all the
wards out of the 14 wards which were reserved for women during the last
election, were exempted from lot. From the residues which were reserved
for scheduled caste during the last election lot was taken and after the lot
ward No.16 was reserved for women. Though ward Nos.9, 10, 16 and 26
were also included in the lot, when the lot was taken, it fell in favour of
ward No.16 and accordingly it was reserved for women. With regard to
ward No.17, it is explained that it was formed by carving out 55.56% of the
wpc 23564/2010 3
population of erstwhile ward No.13 and 24.8% of the population of ward
No.14. The erstwhile ward No.13 was a general ward during the last
election and ward No.14 was reserved for women during the last election.
Thus, the majority of the population of the new ward No.17 was in general
ward during the previous election and therefore for the present term the
same has to be a reserved ward and was included in the lot. On the draw of
lot, the said ward has been reserved for women.
3. It is pointed out that the allegation that ward Nos. 10 and 11 were
not included in the reservation category is incorrect. Ward No.10 is formed
by carving out the population of six different wards and more than 50% of
the population of ward No.10 was in reserved wards during the previous
election. Ward No.11 is formed by carving out 93.28% of the population of
old ward No.15, which was reserved for women and accordingly it has been
exempted.
4. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
drawing of lots is illegal and there is no proper criteria for declaring the
wards as reservation wards, the same cannot be accepted. Out of 28 wards,
15 had to be earmarked for various reservation categories. The manner of
fixing the reservation wards, especially for women, is by drawing of lot.
Evidently, the Commission has fixed certain guidelines for adopting the
wpc 23564/2010 4
reservation wards. The guidelines cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
When different constituencies have to be fixed from among the available
wards, drawing of lots is the safest method, otherwise it may result in
arbitrariness also.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/