IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27189 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF GOVINDAN, KUNHILLATH HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-7. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KANNUR. 5. THE SECRETARY, EDAKKAKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER), P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDL.6. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, REP. BY SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN I.A.No.12118 of 2010 DATED 3.9.2010. ) BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATION FOR R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a resident of Ward No.13 of Edakkad Grama Panchayat in Kannur district has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P10, P11, P12 and P13 final voters lists. He has also sought a direction to the third respondent to consider Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P14 representations after affording him an opportunity of being heard. 2. Exts.P4 and P5 are representations submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, Kannur, objecting to the draft delimitation proposal submitted by the Secretary of Edakkad Grama Panchayat. The State Delimitation Commission has by order passed on 30.6.2010 finalised the delimitation proposals for various grama panchayats in Kannur district including Edakkad Grama Panchayat and the order of the Delimitation Commission has been published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30.6.2010. A learned single Judge of this Court has in W.P(C) No.23641 of 2010 held that in view W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010 2 of section 10(3 A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the bar under Article 243 O of the Constitution of India applies, and therefore, the order issued by the State Delimitation Commission finalising the delimitation proposals cannot be called in question in any Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek or be granted reliefs in regard to Exs.P4 and P5. 3. Exts.P6 and P14 are representations submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of Edakkad Grama Panchayat wherein he has asked for deletion/inclusion of the names of voters from Exts.P10 to P13 voters list. The Apex Court has in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.KM.Hassan Uzaman (AIR 1985 SC 1233) held that the right to be included in the electoral roll is a right conferred upon an individual and not upon any political party. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the name of any particular voter or the names of a group of voters should be included in the electoral roll in respect of any particular constituency of Edakkad Grama Panchayat. Therefore, that part of the relief also cannot be granted. As W.P.(C) No.27189 of 2010 3 regards exclusion of names from the voters lists on the ground that names have been wrongly included in the voters lists of different constituencies, the law provides that in respect of each individual voter, separate applications for deletion of the name from the voters list have to be submitted to the Electoral Registration Officer. Such an application can be filed only by a voter of the constituency. The petitioner who is a resident and voter of Ward No.13 can therefore make such an application only in respect of voters in that constituency. In Exts.P6 and P4, he has sought for the exclusion of names of voters from various other constituencies also. Therefore, for that reason also, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the third respondent to consider his objections to Exts.P10 to P13 voters list. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.