IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24867 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BHARATHAN, OME NIVAS, POOVATHUR, P.O.CHERUVANCHERRY, KANNUR- 670 650. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNADHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER (DISTRICT COLLECTOR), KANNUR. 3. TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMN. R2 & R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON 30/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24867 of 2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the shifting of one of the polling booths in ward No.l3 of Patyam Panchayat from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathur Palam Anganvadi. According to the petitioner, it was done purely due to political pressure exerted by one political party and no justifiable reasons are there. 2. In ward No.13, according to the petitioner, two polling booths were located at Cheruvancherry U.P. School which were convenient to all the voters. For fixing of polling booths, a meeting was held. A proposal was submitted by one Shri Prabhakaran, for shifting of one of the polling booths from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathur New L.P. School based on the distance. It was enquired through the Tahsildar, Thalassery and Ext.P1 is the report of enquiry. The second respondent convened a meeting on 30.7.2010 for settling the dispute and thereafter a decision was taken to shift one booth pertaining to Div.No.II to Poovathur Palam Anganvadi. It is pointed out that the same is unsustainable. 3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the representation submitted by the wpc 24867/2010 2 petitioner before the second respondent and Ext.P3 is the copy of a mass petition. 4. On behalf of the State Election Commission, a statement has been filed. It is pointed out that Section 45 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act makes provision for polling stations and no specific norm is provided therein for fixing polling stations. It only mentions that there should be sufficient number of polling stations for every Panchayat and that the list of polling stations shall be published with previous approval of the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission has issued detailed guidelines to all District Election Officers for setting up of polling stations. 5. It is explained that a meeting of the political parties was convened on 30.7.2010 in the chambers of the District Collector. Annexure A is the photo copy of the minutes of the said meeting. In the said meeting it was decided to shift polling station No.2 from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathurpalam Anganvadi considering the convenience of the voters to reach the polling station. Annexure B is the letter forwarded to the Election commission in that regard. 6. It is therefore stated that a final decision was taken as per the consensus arrived at in the meeting. Learned counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the political party to which the petitioner wpc 24867/2010 3 belongs, was also represented in the meeting and no objections were raised in the matter. The consensus was arrived at for shifting and the petitioner cannot reagitate the same in this writ petition. It is clear that the political party to which the petitioner belongs, was represented before the District Collector during the meeting. Even though it is contended in para 10 of the writ petition that the shifting of booth was opposed by the B.J.P., the said plea goes against the contents of the minutes of the meeting and it doesn't show that any such objection was raised. Further, the person who has represented B.J.P in the meeting, has not disputed the deliberations of the meeting before any forum as no pleadings to that effect is there in the writ petition and he is not a party to the writ petition also. Evidently, the petitioner had not participated in the meeting. Therefore, he cannot dispute the veracity of the contents of Annexure A. 7. What is provided in Section 45 of the Act is only that there should be sufficient number of polling stations for every Panchayat. Evidently, the District Collector had convened a meeting of all the political parties and on the basis of the consensus arrived at, a decision was taken to shift one polling station from Cheruvancherry U.P. School to Poovathurpalam Anganvadi, based on the facility of the voters to travel to the polling station. This cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary on any score. wpc 24867/2010 4 8. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the order passed by the second respondent fixing the polling booth, in the absence of any violation of the statutory provisions. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/