IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26299 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SUBRAMANIYA PILLAI, S/O.SHANMUGHAM PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, VALIYA VILAKAM, KATTAKKADA-695 572. 2. RAMU, S/O.SOMAN NAIR, GREEM PALACE, KATTAKADA-695 572. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, KATTAKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATTAKADA-695 572. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 26299/2010(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE 1ST THREE PAGES AND THE LAST THREE PAGES OF THE NAMES PUBLISHED IN FORM 10. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICED DATED 10/08/2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/08/2010 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P4:COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER EVIDENCING DESPATCH OF EXT P2 NOTICE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER EVIDENCING DESPATCH OF EXT P3 NOTICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FORM 10 LIST SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS OBJECTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FORM 10 LIST SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS OBJECTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SVS/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26299 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners herein, who are voters of Kattakada Grama Panchayat, are aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 communications issued by the 2nd respondent, who is the Secretary as well as Electoral Registration Officer. 2. In Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3. The dispute herein relates to the applications submitted under Form 8 by the petitioners objecting to the inclusion of certain names in the voters list, and for dieletion of them. 4. The 2nd respondent issued Exts.P2 and P3 stating that a notice proposing hearing on the matter was given on 1.8.2010, but, they did not appear or produce any records in support of the objections. W.P.(C) No.26299/2010 2 5. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that actually on verifying the records it is seen that the 2nd respondent has not issued the notices referred to in Exts.P2 and P3. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the statement these details have been stated and those paragraphs of the statement filed by the 1st respondent are reproduced for easy reference. “5. According to the 2 nd respondent, on scrutiny of the applications it was found that most of the applications are incomplete and does not have the address of the objectors and the details of the entry objected including the address of the persons whose names are sought to be deleted. The 2 nd respondent also informed that the Forms have been filled in a very casual manner and that it does not even bear the date of the application. According to the 2 nd respondent when an application for deletion of name of a voter from the electoral roll is submitted the same has to be made with responsibility and the person who seek the deletion of entry in electoral roll has to give a declaration that the facts mentioned therein are true and any person who makes a Statement or declaration W.P.(C) No.26299/2010 3 which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true is punishable under Section 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. According to the 2 nd respondent since the applications were vague no actions were taken on the claims received under Form No.8. 6. The 2 nd respondent has not taken any decision on the 1111 applications in Form No.8. The 2 nd respondent has not issued the notice dated 01.08.2010 referred to in Exts.P2 and P3.” 6. The Commission maintains that Exts.P2 and P3 were not warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also submitted that notices proposing the hearing on 1.8.2010 have not been issued as stated in Exts.P2 and P3. 7. The same will require fresh notice to be issued, for conducting due enquiry. Accordingly, Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed. The learned standing counsel for the Commission submitted that before the last date for receipt of nomination, the entire exercise will be completed in accordance with the W.P.(C) No.26299/2010 4 provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the action thereon will be finalised after issuing notice to the petitioners, and others if any. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps .