IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23980 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.KADAR, KUZHIMANNIL HOUSE, P.O.PAZOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. ELECTION REGISTRATION OFFICER, (SECRETARY CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH), CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R2 SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 & R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23980/2010-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.5 of Chathamangalam Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode District and is the Convenor of U.D.F. Kunnamangalam Assembly Constituency Committee and he is also a former President of the Grama Panchayat. The issue pertains to the complaint regarding the draft voters list published for the election to the local body, namely, Chathamangalam Grama Panchayat herein. 2. The objections are on different grounds. It is pointed out that there are serious omissions and mistakes in the draft roll. Houses are included in other wards than the wards where people are residing and hundreds of voters are included in other wards when most of their relatives are listed in their own wards. The petitioner has listed certain instances in the matter. Ext.P1 is a detail representation submitted before sixth respondent which was forwarded to the fourth respondent-Election Registration Officer. It is pointed out that thereafter also no action has been taken by the fourth respondent to conduct due enquiries after hearing the parties and after verifying the omissions and mistakes pointed out in the voters list. It is pointed out that due to the compulsion of various W.P.(C). No.23980/2010 -:2:- political parties, finally on 13/07/2010, the fourth respondent published notice for correction by giving hearing dates in the last days of July, and Ext.P2 is a copy of those notices. Further representations are produced as Exts.P3 and P4. It is further alleged that no hearing was conducted on 27/07/2010, 28/07/2010 and 29/07/2010 as per the Statute. 3. It is also pointed out that steps are being taken to include illegal voters also in the voters list. Apart from that, individual applicants who are genuine voters had submitted applications for inclusion and even though on the hearing date, namely, 22/07/2010, almost all the applicants were present, the fourth respondent arbitrarily denied their valuable right on the plea that the application shall be counter signed by the voter of the same part itself. It is pointed out that it is not a requirement under law. It is contended that under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994 especially Rule 2 Sub Rule (e), 'roll' means “the electoral roll for a constituency” and it is not confined to the same part. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission. It is submitted that as far as the applications for inclusion of voters are concerned, under Form No.4, individual applications should be submitted and W.P.(C). No.23980/2010 -:3:- the application should be endorsed by an elector as per the form prescribed by the Statute itself stating that he is an elector in the electoral roll in which the claimant applied for inclusion and his name is enrolled at Serial No.etc. in Part No.etc. of the roll and he supports the claim and counter signs it. It is therefore submitted that the Electoral Officer will consider all the applications submitted, if they are in the proper form and will take a decision appropriate to the claims raised in the matter. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far the Electoral Registration Officer has not finalised anything and he is keeping the matter himself i.e., with regard to the objections regarding omissions and mistakes in the voters list and with regard to the registration of new voters evidently without taking action as enjoined by law. 6. Since a time frame has been provided for publication of preliminary and final voters list, the matter cannot be postponed indefinitely. Therefore, with regard to the omissions and mistakes and with regard to the claim for inclusion of voters due enquiry will be conducted. The claims of the persons who have sought inclusion in the voters list will be considered by the W.P.(C). No.23980/2010 -:4:- fourth respondent in terms of the rules and as per the requirements of the rules before finalising the voters list. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms