IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27960 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.L.POLACHAN,PALATTI HOUSE, MOOKKANNOOR.P.O,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 577. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, O/O.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED: R4. MOOKKANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MOOKKANNOOR P.O. - 683 577, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 9/09/2010 IN I.A.NO.12451/2010) R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMN. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27960 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Mookkannoor Grama Panchayat and also a member of the committee of the Panchayat presently in office. He is also the Chairman of the Development Standing Committee of Mookkannoor Grama Panchayat. This writ petition is filed contending that reservation of ward No.VI as a constituency reserved for women candidates, offends the provisions contained in Ext.P1 guidelines and is bad for the reason that ward No.VI has been successively reserved for women candidates. 2. It is not in dispute that ward No.VI was a constituency reserved for women candidates during the elections held in the year 2005. Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the State Election Commission contemplates draw of lots for identifying the constituencies to be reserved for women/ the scheduled castes/ the scheduled tribes. It is provided that while conducting the draw of lots, constituencies which were reserved constituencies in the last elections should be excluded subject to such constituencies satisfying certain other criteria. The main contention raised by the WPC No.27960/2010 2 petitioner is that in the ensuing elections ward No.VI is treated as a reserved constituency which will amount to successive reservation, which is not permissible. 3. A statement dated 13.9.2010 and an additional statement dated 21.9.2010 have been filed on behalf of the State Election Commission by its learned standing counsel. In the second paragraph of the additional statement it is stated that out of the 14 constituencies, 7 constituencies are reserved for women and one for the scheduled castes. It is stated that 8 constituencies namely (1) 14. Parambayam (2) 3. Tabore (3) 5. Kanan Desom (4) 6. Mookkannoor Church (5) 12. Vattekkad (6) 2. Edakkad (7) 6. Baselious Nagar (8) 1. Poothamkutty, were reserved constituencies in the elections held in the year 2005 and that the first 7 constituencies were reserved in favour of women and the 8th in favour of the scheduled castes. It is also stated that out of the 7 constituencies which were not reserved constituencies in the last elections, 5 constituencies were reserved for women candidates and one for the schedules castes and that for the balance two constituencies to be reserved for women candidates, two constituencies were required to be taken from the 8 constituencies WPC No.27960/2010 3 which were initially exempted from the draw of lots on the ground of being erstwhile reserved wards. It is stated that ward No.I Poothamkutty which was a constituency reserved for the scheduled castes in the last elections was reserved as a constituency for women candidates in the ensuing elections and that to find out one more constituency required to be reserved for women candidates, a draw of lots of the remaining 7 constituencies which was reservd in the last election and which were initially exempted from the lot that was held and in that draw, ward No.VI was reserved for women candidates. The letter sent by the Secretary of the State Election Commission to the District Collector is marked as Annexure C. 3. Sri. K.P.Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not explained how and in what manner draw of lots was held and that it is not clear from the statement as to whether the draw of lots was held after due notice to the public. Per contra, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission contended that the draw of lots was held after wide publicity at Town Hall, Ernakulam and it was in the presence of various persons who were present at the venue of elections that the draw of lots was held WPC No.27960/2010 4 on 17.9.2010 in the manner prescribed in Section 10 (2A) of the Kerala Panchayt Raj Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the materials placed on record that the District Collector, the delegate of the State Election Commission, could not have reserved a 7th constituency in favour of women candidates without conducting a draw of lots falling among the seven constituencies namely (1) 14. Parambayam (2) 3. Tabore (3) 5. Kanan Desom (4) 6. Mookkannoor Church (5) 12. Vattekkad (6) 2. Edakkad (7) 6. Baselious Nagar. Even if ward No.VI had not been chosen by draw of lots, any one among the remaining 6 wards, which had also been reserved in favour of women candidates in the last elections, would have been chosen. The draw of lots from 7 constituencies which had been reserved in favour of women during the last elections, was absolutely necessary in order to reserve the 7th seat in favour of the women candidate in the ensuing elections. The draw of lots to identify the seat is a permissible course of action. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Commission has acted illegally in identifying WPC No.27960/2010 5 the constituency to be reserved in favour of women by draw of lots. Further, the petitioner has no case that he was unaware of the draw of lots or that the draw of lots was not held in the manner prescribed by the statute. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the decision of the District Collector I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.27960/2010 6 27960 The petitione is a resident of Mukannoor Grama Panchayat and was also a member of the committee of the Pnchayat presently in office 25222 Petitionrs 1 to 3 and repondents 1 to 3 are near relatives. Petitoners 1 to 3 along with the fourth petitioner have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the Corporation of ochin to enquire into the legality of the construction being made by respondents 1 to 3 and to take appropriate action thereon. Apart from the fact that acording to the petitoners the building is being put up in violation of the Keral Municipality Building 1999, respondents 1 to 3 put up a mobile based transfer station on the top of the building wich according to the petitoner are affect the health and well being of the neighbouring residents. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit contending that construction of the building started