IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24751 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BENNY THUNDATHIL, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KUTHUNKAL PO, MAVARACITY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BENNY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT KUNNEL HOUSE, CHEMMANNAR PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. BABU GEORGE, S/O.MATHAI VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT VATTOLIL HOUSE, KAILASANADU PO, PARATHODU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 003. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, THODUPUZHA PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584. 4. THE SECRETARY(ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER),UDUMBANCHOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDUMBANCHOLA PO-685 554, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1& R4 BY ADV SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, K.S.E.COMM R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 24751 of 2010-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners are residents of Udumbanchola Grama Panchayat. Mainly, the complaint raised in the writ petition is regarding the irregularities in the preparation of voters list and enrolling of new persons as voters. It is contended that the 4th respondent Electoral Registration Officer has illegally acted in including in the electoral roll ineligible persons. Ext.P1 is earlier complaint made by the first petitioner. The Election Commission forwarded Ext.P1 to the second respondent for conducting an enquiry as evidenced by Ext.P3. According to the petitoner, no such enquiry was conducted which compelled him to file another representation as per Ext.P4. Finally, it was informed by Ext.P5 that the 4th respondent could enroll a person as voter only after conducting an enquiry as per the documents produced by him. Subsequent representations followed and in the absence of any further communication or details of the enquiry conducted in the matter, this writ petition is filed seeking for various reliefs. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent and a wpc 24751/2010 2 statement has been filed by the first respondent also. 3. According to the 4th respondent, the draft voters list was published on 1.7.2010 and objections were called for. 1905 applications were received by him in Form No.4 of the relevant rules and 29 applications in Form No.5 were received objecting inclusion of names in the electoral roll and 185 applications were received in Form No.8 for deletion of entries from the roll. According to him, he followed the various procedures contemplated under Rule 14 of the Registration of Electors Rules by publishing the details and the list of objections. It is pointed out that all applicants for inclusion of names in electoral roll were directed to appear with relevant documents to prove their age and proof of their ordinary residence. Finally, 902 applications in Form No.4 were rejected for want of satisfactory evidence of their qualifications. 28 applications received objecting to inclusion of their names in the electoral roll were allowed on enquiry and the names of 28 persons were removed. Out of the 185 applications for deletion of entry in the electoral roll, 121 applications were accepted and 121 names were delted from the draft voters list. 64 applications were rejected after enquiry. It is pointed out that 449 persons were deleted from the draft electoral roll and 1003 new voters were included and the final voters list contained 13269 voters and the draft contained wpc 24751/2010 3 12715 voters. 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the Election Commission also various details have been mentioned. 5. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, even after the enquiry is completed and final voters list has been published also, the petitioners have got effective remedy. It is mentioned in para 4 of the statement that the petitioners can still approach the Electoral Registration Officer for inclusion and deletion of names from the electoral roll by submitting necessary applications under the Registration of Electors Rules in terms of the provisions under Section 24 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and there is a further remedy under Rule 22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 23 also gives remedy to the petitioner. 6. Evidently, since the petitioners' complaint can be further prosecuted by them, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 7. If the petitioners file appropriate applications before the Electoral Registration Officer by invoking the provisions of Sections 23, 24 and the relevant rules, the same will be considered by the Electoral Registration Officer in accordance with the scheme of the Act and the rules and due wpc 24751/2010 4 enquiry will be conducted also in the matter. The petitioners can approach the Electoral Registration Officer with all the materials and the details with regard to their objections in the matter, which will be duly verified by the Electoral Registration Officer to avoid any complaint with regard to the finalisation of the voters list. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/