IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 CRP.NO. 385 OF 2011() --------------------------------- OP.18/2010 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- MALAYIL KASIM MASTER, S/O.AMMAD, CHERAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, RESIDING AT 'THANAL HOUSE' VADAKARA TALUK, POOLAKKOOL P.O., VIA. KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 507. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.BALAN MASTER, S/O.ANDIPANICKER, RESIDING AT 'THANAL', VADAKARA TALUK, POOLKKOOL P.O., VIA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673 507. 2. BIJU MALAYIL, S/O. KANNAN, MALAYIL HOUSE, VADAKARA TALUK, POOLKKOOL P.O., VIA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673 507. 3. KOLLANTEKANDY MUNEER, S/O.CHEKKOTTY, KOLLANTEKANDY HOUSE, VADAKARA TALUK, CHERUKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, VELAM P.O., VIA. KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673 508. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.385 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 O R D E R First respondent in O.P(Election) No.18 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli is the petitioner before me challenging order dated April 12, 2011 passed by the learned Munsiff holding that the election petition is maintainable. First respondent challenged the election of petitioner from Ward No.XVII of Velam Grama Panchayat on various grounds such as total number of voters as per the electoral roll was 1183, as per the final delimitation of Ward No.XVII of Velam Grama Panchayat the boundaries fixed are as stated in Ground 2(a) of the Election Petition and hence voters who are residing in areas beyond the geographical limits could not and should not come as voters in Ward No.XVII. It is also alleged that the right to cast votes is confined to citizens who are residing within the four boundaries of the ward as per the final delimitation. In paragraph 2(b) it is alleged that there were 102 persons who were actually residing outside the geographical western boundary as fixed in the final delimitation but who cast their votes illegally in booth No.1 of Ward No.XVII contrary to the final delimitation of the said Ward. C.R.P. No.385 of 2011 -: 2 :- Similar allegations are also made in the further paragraphs of the election petition. The first respondent has also given a list of persons resided out of the geographical boundary of Ward No.XVII and who cast their votes in the election. He also refers to his grievance urged in the matter but rejected by the authorities concerned. In paragraph 2(f) first respondent stated that he is highly prejudiced by the acts and conduct of the Officer in charge of the election who has not complied with the observations of this Court (where the decision of the delimitation commission was challenged). 2. Petitioner challenged maintainability of the election petition on the ground that first respondent is virtually challenging the decision of the delimitation commission which is beyond challenge particularly as first respondent failed in his attempt to challenge the order of the delimitation commission in W.P(C) No.18524 of 2010. Learned Munsiff-Magistrate found that the challenge in the election petition is not to the decision of delimitation commission but based on the allegation that the voters list was not prepared in accordance with the directions of the delimitation commission. C.R.P. No.385 of 2011 -: 3 :- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out from the proceedings of the delimitation commission dated 15.05.2010 that in clause (8) there was a specific direction to include the inhabitants of houses mentioned therein as also voters in the election. It is contended that what was done is only that much and hence indirectly the first respondent is challenging proceeding of the delimitation commission. 4. But I must notice from the election petition that first respondent has given a list of 102 persons as residing beyond the geographical boundary of Ward No.XVII but were (allegedly) included as voters in Ward No.XVII. Whether those persons are residing in the houses referred to in the order dated 15.05.2010 of the delimitation commission and whether the contention which the first respondent has raised are true are matters which require evidence. I am inclined to think that at this stage in the light of the averments contained in the election petition the same cannot be said to be not maintainable. 5. I make it clear it is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of contentions he has raised in the counter C.R.P. No.385 of 2011 -: 4 :- statement. Original Petition is dismissed with the above observation. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv