IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22118 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.SREENIVASAN, SREENIVAS, PUTHIYATHURA (POST), KARUMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE APPELLATE OFFICER UNDER KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS) RULES 1994,(THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRATION OFFICER UNDER KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS)RULES, 1994, (THE SECRETARY,KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT), KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22118 OF 2008 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P4 and to direct the 3rd respondent to delete the names of 107 persons from the final voters list of Ward No. IV of Karumkulam Grama Panchayat. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent who has filed a statement in this matter. 3. Having heard both sides I am satisfied that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, for reasons more than one. First of all, the writ petition is bad for non-impleadment of the 107 voters whose names are sought to be removed from the final voters list. Apart from that, the election process having commenced this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge in view of the bar imposed under Article 243 (O)(b) of the Constitution of W.P.(C) No. 22118 OF 2008 -2- India. That apart, this Court has taken the consistent view that challenge in this nature cannot be entertained in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as is reflected in the judgment in State Election Commission v. Krishnan {2001(1) KLT 285} and Muhammad Ali v. State Election Commission {2006(3) KLT 496}. In addition to all these, it is also seen that Ext. P3 is not in compliance with the statutory form prescribed under the rules framed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. For all these reasons, writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-