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. 27455 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKUTTA KURUP, KURUTHOLAYIL HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY P.O, (VIA) KARIKKAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KADAVALLORE MANDALAM CONGRESS COMMITTEE PRESIDENT, KADAVALLORE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 683001 2. ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER/ SECRETARY, KADAVALLORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST KARREKAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 683 001 3. RAJAN, SECRETARY, KADAVALLORE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST KARREKAD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 683 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R1 & R2 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.27455 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is an office bearer of the Indian National Congress has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to immediately take up Ext.P9 representation and make the necessary corrections in the final voters list, rectifying the defects as pointed out in Ext.P9, after hearing the petitioner and conducting enquiry in terms of Sec. 23 of the Panchayat Raj Act. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to immediately act on Ext.P9 representation before the time limit prescribed in Sec.24(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. A reading of Ext.P9 would indicate that the grievances of the petitioner are many. He contends that many eligible voters have been excluded from the final voters list, many voters have been included in the voters list of two constituencies thereby enabling them to vote in two constituencies and many ineligible persons have been included in the voters list of certain other constituencies. The petitioner has however not pleaded that he is a resident of Kadavallore Grama Panchayat, to which this writ petition relates. W.P.(C) No.27455 of 2010 2 2. 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. The petitioner who is an office bearer of a political party cannot, therefore, seek a direction to the Electoral Registration Officer to include a name of a particular person or the names of a group of persons in the electoral roll. It is for the individuals whose names are excluded to apply for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, no person whether he be an office bearer of a political party or a political party by itself cannot compel the Electoral Registration Officer to include the name of a particular person or the names of a group of persons in the electoral roll. Therefore, that request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 3. The petitioner has yet another grievance regarding the wrongful inclusion of the names of many voters in the final electoral roll. The procedure for removal of persons from the electoral roll is set out in rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994. An application for removal of the name of a W.P.(C) No.27455 of 2010 3 voter from the voters list can be submitted only by a voter on the rolls in the manner as prescribed in the rules. The petitioner who is not a voter of Kadavallore Grama Panchayat cannot therefore submit even individual applications before the Electoral Registration Officer seeking exclusion of voters from the final voters list. If that be so, he cannot compel the Electoral Registration Officer to exercise the suo motu power vested in him by acting on his representation. Further, many of the statements in Ext.P9 are vague and cannot form basis of a suo motu action by the Electoral Registration Officer. 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.