IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23564 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VIJU M.THANKACHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.Y.THANKACAN, MELETHIL HOUSE, PARAKODE P.O. ADOOR. 2. E.K.SURESH, S/O.KUNJUNJU, AGED 42 YEARS, MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ADOOR P.O. 2. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER/ SECRETARY, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR. 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R2,3 R4 BY G.P. SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 23564 of 2010-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The first petitioner herein is a voter from Ward No.16 of Adoor Municipality and the second petitioner is a Councillor of the said Municipality. The first petitioner is residing in ward No.16 and the second petitioner is residing in ward No.17 and both wards have been declared as women wards this time. It is contended that the petitioners have filed Exts.P2 and P3 objections in the matter. The petitioners contended that the wards were selected by lots which is not a common practice and there is no real criteria for declaring reservation of wards also. It is further pointed out that from 1995 onwards ward Nos.10 and 19 are continuing as general wards. Ward No.16 was originally ward No.12 and it was a women ward. But subsequently it was made a general ward and thereafter it was a scheduled caste general ward and now it is a women ward. Ward No.17 which was originally ward No.14, was reserved for scheduled castes, then it was a women ward and again it has become women ward. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is explained that ward No.16, Anantharamapuram, is formed with the areas wpc 23564/2010 2 comprised under erstwhile ward No.12. The erstwhile ward No.12 was reserved for Scheduled Caste and thus it was initially exempted from the lot for selection of reserved wards for Adoor Municipality. The total number of wards for Adoor Municipality is 28 out of which, 14 seats are reserved for women including 2 seats reserved for scheduled caste women. Thus, 15 wards have to go to reserved categories. Only 14 of the newly constituted wards were general wards earlier. Therefore, exempting the other 14 wards which were erstwhile reserved wards, for selecting the present 15 reserved seats, lots were taken from the 14 erstwhile general wards, but one more ward was required for filling up the required number of seats reserved for reserved category. The deficiency of reserved ward occurred in the category of women. This had to be taken from one of the 14 wards which were initially exempted being erstwhile reservation wards. Initially, all the wards out of the 14 wards which were reserved for women during the last election, were exempted from lot. From the residues which were reserved for scheduled caste during the last election lot was taken and after the lot ward No.16 was reserved for women. Though ward Nos.9, 10, 16 and 26 were also included in the lot, when the lot was taken, it fell in favour of ward No.16 and accordingly it was reserved for women. With regard to ward No.17, it is explained that it was formed by carving out 55.56% of the wpc 23564/2010 3 population of erstwhile ward No.13 and 24.8% of the population of ward No.14. The erstwhile ward No.13 was a general ward during the last election and ward No.14 was reserved for women during the last election. Thus, the majority of the population of the new ward No.17 was in general ward during the previous election and therefore for the present term the same has to be a reserved ward and was included in the lot. On the draw of lot, the said ward has been reserved for women. 3. It is pointed out that the allegation that ward Nos. 10 and 11 were not included in the reservation category is incorrect. Ward No.10 is formed by carving out the population of six different wards and more than 50% of the population of ward No.10 was in reserved wards during the previous election. Ward No.11 is formed by carving out 93.28% of the population of old ward No.15, which was reserved for women and accordingly it has been exempted. 4. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the drawing of lots is illegal and there is no proper criteria for declaring the wards as reservation wards, the same cannot be accepted. Out of 28 wards, 15 had to be earmarked for various reservation categories. The manner of fixing the reservation wards, especially for women, is by drawing of lot. Evidently, the Commission has fixed certain guidelines for adopting the wpc 23564/2010 4 reservation wards. The guidelines cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. When different constituencies have to be fixed from among the available wards, drawing of lots is the safest method, otherwise it may result in arbitrariness also. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/