Dismissed

Pramod Kumar S.N., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020WP(C)/150/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Government Order on delimitation citing violation of Article 243C of the Constitution and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving all contentions open, due to the announcement of elections and the practice of non-interference in the election process.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted but contentions left open for future approach regarding next election.

Pramod Kumar S.N., Vs State of Kerala — Election Law | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.150 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRAMOD KUMAR S.N., AGED 40 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA PANCHAYAT, EMPLOYEES, FEDERAL STATE COMMITTEE, JOINT COUNCIL BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.P.P.BIJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 KERALA STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS,PUBIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶12

3 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY,LMS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶13

4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ( SECRET SECTION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

R1, R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2-3 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM

¶15

S GOPINATHAN SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.150 OF 2020(P)

¶18

..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 11th day of November 2020

¶21

This writ petition was filed on 6.01.2020 challenging Ext.P5 Government Order stating that it is in violation of Article 243C of

¶22

the Constitution and Sec.6(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the composition of

¶24

Panchayat as referred under Article 243C of the Constitution is based on the ratio between the population of each constituency through out the Panchayat area. Therefore, it shall be applicable to the entire State. Population is defined under Article 243(f) as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. The exercise is being carried out for conducting the election based on 2001 census. Therefore, it is submitted that the election scheduled now for the local authorities is in violation of Article 243C. It is submitted that delimitation should

¶25

WP(C).No.150 OF 2020(P)

¶26

..3..

¶27

take place in accordance with the census in the year 2011.

¶28

The election commission filed a statement in this matter.

¶29

In paragraph 4 it reads thus:

¶30

“With regard to the prayer for delimitation as per the census of the year 2011, it is submitted that the task of delimitation of constituencies can be commenced by the Delimitation Commission only after the Government fixes the strength of Panchayats under Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Since there is no change in the strength of Panchayats notified by the Government under Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 it is not incumbent on the State Delimitation Commission to undertake the task of delimitation of constituencies of Local Self Government Institutions in Kerala before the next General Election.”

¶31

As seen from the statement, it is on account of non

¶32

initiation of the process under Sections 10 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the State Delimitation Commission could not undertake the task of delimitation of the constituency.

¶33

The elections to the local authorities have been announced. Notification scheduled to be issued tomorrow. Any exercise by this Court for interfering the matter would amount to interfering the process of election. The Court consistently followed

¶34

WP(C).No.150 OF 2020(P)

¶35

a practice not to interfere with the process of the election. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that leaving open all the contentions urged in this writ petition, the petition can be dismissed and no relief can be granted to the petitioner due to the announcement of election. The petitioner is free to approach this Court again, if the petitioner is of the view that the next election is not based on Article 243C of the Constitution.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.150 OF 2020(P)

¶41

..5..

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.1.2015 IN WP(C) NO.32813/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶45

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.877/2018/LSGT DATED 28.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.246/2019 LSGT DATED 04.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY EXHIBIT P3 (A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 (A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 13/11/2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Pramod Kumar S.N., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar S.N., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joy Varghese Vs the District Collector

Shanavas.P.S Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Patric D' Coutho Vs Alappuzha Municipality

Aji C Vs Vaikom Municipality

Aji C. Vs Vaikom Municipality

K.C.Mohammed Vs District Collector, Palakkad