IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1679 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GANGADHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SHANMUGHAN, PULAVAR VEEDU, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTION TO DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD. SC for R1 SRI. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SC FOR R2 SRI. M. SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1679 OF 2010(H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T In the District Planning Committee, Palakkad, there arose a casual vacancy in August, 2008, consequent on the resignation of one of the Councilors. By Ext.P1 notice, election to fill up the aforesaid casual vacancy is scheduled to be held at 11 a.m. on 19.1.2010. It is challenging Ext.P1 notice that this writ petition is filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 7 of the Kerala District Planning Committee(Election of Member and Proceedings of Meeting)Rules, 1995 framed under Section 53 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, election to the District Planning Committee shall be held in a meeting convened under Rule 7(1) on a date that may be fixed by the State Election Commission, in the case of an ordinary vacancy, within 3 months from the date of publication of the names of the elected members or councilors by the Commission followed by the conduct of general election in the District Panchayat, more than half of the town Panchayats, Municipal WPC.No. 1679/2010 :2 : Councils and Municipal Corporation as the case may be, of the District concerned and that in the case of casual vacancy, immediately after the receipt of the report regarding the vacancy. It is stated that immediately after the casual vacancy in question arose, report was given to the State Election Commission and that the election ought to have been held immediately thereafter. Petitioner submits that not only that election was not held immediate as above, even the 3 months period fixed for conducting election to ordinary vacancy itself having expired, the vacancy cannot be filled up any longer. According to him, Rule 7 (2) contains an interdiction that after the expiry of 3 months from the date of occurrence of vacancy, a vacancy either ordinary or casual, cannot be filled up. Rule 7(2) reads as under. “Election to the District Planning Committee, shall be held in a meeting convened under sub- rule(1), on a date as may be fixed by the State Election Commission, in the case of an ordinary vacancy, within three months from the date of publication of the names of the elected members or councilors by the State Election Commission followed by the conduct of general election in the District Panchayat, more than half of the Town Panchayats, Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporation as the case may be, of the district and in the case of a casual vacancy, immediately after the receipt of the report regarding the vacancy.” WPC.No. 1679/2010 :3 : 3. A reading of this rule shows that in respect of the ordinary vacancies the same should be filled up within 3 months and in respect of casual vacancies, the same should be filled up immediately after receipt of the report regarding the vacancy. Although there is a time frame required, the said time frame is incorporated in the rule to ensure that the vacancies of the nature mentioned therein are filled up by taking necessary election with due expedition. That the time frame has not been complied with does not, in my understanding, mean that, the Rule imposes any injunction against filling up the vacancy as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. If I am to accept the contention of the learned counsel that will lead to the disastrous consequence of prohibiting the Election Commission from filling up the vacancies in a case as the present one. Such cannot be the intend of the statute and therefore I am not persuaded to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 1679/2010 :4 :