Writ petition challenging erroneous inclusion of houses in the wrong electoral ward. Court upheld the State Election Officer's decision based on a subsequent joint inspection, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942
WP(C).No.22333 OF 2020(N)
PETITIONER:
K.P. NOUSHAD, AGED 36 YEARS S/O HAMSAKOYA, KOUUVANTE PURAKKAL, CHAPPAPPADI, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, JANAHITHAM , TC 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, PARAPPANANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN676 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676 303.
5 ADDL. R5 ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY PARAPPANANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676303 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.11.2020 IN I.A. NO. 1/2020. R1 BY SHRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.NESNA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, THE COURT ON 06-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.22333 of 2020
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2020
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a person residing within the limits
of the third respondent Municipality. It is stated by the
petitioner that in the draft electoral roll prepared by the Electoral Registration Officer concerned for the ensuing election to the third respondent Municipality, 20 houses situated within the limits of Ward No.39 were shown by mistake as falling within the limits of Ward No.40. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation to the first respondent, the State Election Commission. The first respondent has forwarded the said representation, which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P4, to the second respondent for appropriate action, and the second respondent has, in turn,
WPC No.22333 OF 2020 3
forwarded the same to the Electoral Registration Officer concerned for further action. It is stated by the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P4 representation, the Electoral Registration Officer has caused an enquiry to be made through the fourth respondent, the Municipal Engineer and the Municipal Engineer has reported that the houses referred to by the petitioner are situated within the limits of Ward No.39 and they have been mistakenly shown as situated within the limits of Ward No.40. It is stated by the petitioner that despite such a finding rendered by the fourth respondent, appropriate corrections have not been made in the electoral roll. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for appropriate relief in this regard.
WPC No.22333 OF 2020 4
the first respondent to the second respondent for appropriate action and the second respondent has, in turn, forwarded the said representation to the Electoral Registration Officer for further action. It is stated that the fourth respondent has though conducted an inspection, his report was not satisfactory as he himself was not able to arrive at a positive finding as to the location of the houses referred to by the petitioner. It is also stated in the statement that the Electoral Registration Officer, in the circumstances, sought directions from the first respondent and the first respondent has directed the Electoral Registration Officer to conduct a physical verification and take appropriate decision. It is stated that the Electoral Registration Officer, thereupon, inspected the houses along with the fourth respondent and found that the houses are in fact located within the limits of Ward No.40 itself and there is absolutely no mistake in this regard.
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
5
the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Municipality.
“ഇലകൻ കമ�ഷൻ അ�ഗ�കര�ച മ�ൽ മരഖകളട� അ��സ�നത�ൽ �� സല� സനർശ�ച. ആയത# പക�ര� ward 39, 40 എന�വയട� അത�രകൾ ത�ട+ പറയന പക�ര��ട.ന# മ/�ധ1ട2ട.
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
6
| വ�ക# | ക�+ക# | ടതക# | പ��ഞ�റ# | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward | ക�വന�+� ഇ�വ+� |
ത�രർ-ക�ലണ� | KPH | ട<മ=��# പ���, |
| 39 | പട�റമ�ൽ മത��# |
മറ�ഡ# | Road | �ലയമ��# മറ�ഡ# |
| �ലയമ��# മറ�ഡ# | <�ല�2��� ഡ?മനജ#, മറ�മത��#, മറ�മത��# ഫ�# പ�ത# |
|||
| Ward | ട��ല /സ�ർ- |
ട��ല /സ�ർ |
KPH | അറ/�ക�ൽ- |
| 40 | �ണ�റ മറ�ഡ#, |
ഇ�വ+�, KPH | Road | സ�ത�മക�യ ത=ൾ |
| സ�ത�മക�യ ത=ൾ | മറ�ഡ# ഇ�വ+�, |
മറ�ഡ# | ||
| മറ�ഡ# | �ണ�റ �ദസ |
|||
| ഇ�വ+�, | ||||
| – മറ�മത��# |
||||
| <�ല�2��� ഫ�# പ�ത |
�� മരഖകൾ പക�ര� 39-ആ� വ�ർഡ�ൻടറ പ��ഞ�ടറ അത�ർത�യ� 40-ആ� വ�ർഡ�ൻടറ
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
7
ക�+മക അത�ർത�യ� മറ�മത��# ആ.#. �� പര�ത�യ�ൽ പറഞ വ�ടകൾ 39-ആ� വ�ർഡ�ൻടറ പ��ഞ�മറ അത�ർത�യ�ൽ ന�ന� ക�+ക വശത�യ�ട�.# ക�ണനത.”
As evident from the extracted report, though the fourth respondent recites in the report that the houses are situated within the limits of Ward No.39, the report indicates that the fourth respondent was not very much sure of the said factual conclusion. True, it is stated in Ext.P5 report that the fourth respondent has conducted an inspection of Ward Nos.39 and 40. But nevertheless, he recites in the report that for the purpose of correctly ascertaining the question as to whether the houses referred to by the petitioner would fall within the boundaries of Ward No.39 or 40, the aid of GPS is required.
filed by the first respondent in this matter reads thus:
“4. The Electoral Registration Officer of the 3rd respondent Municipality (Secretary of the Municipality) has informed this respondent that on the basis of Annexure-R1(b) an enquiry in person was conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer along with the Municipal Engineer and
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
8
they are convinced that all the 19 houses referred to in Ext.P4 complaint are included in Division No.40 and not in Division No.39 and they are to be retained in Division No.40 itself and the complaint of the petitioner is without any basis. The photocopy of the letter No. G2/9881/20 dated 14.10.2020 of the Secretary of 3rd respondent to this respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R1(c).”
It is evident from the aforesaid statement that the Electoral Registration Officer has conducted an inspection in the houses referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition along with the fourth respondent and it is thereafter that he has come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong in including the houses referred to by the petitioner in Ward No.40. In a case of this nature, according to me, the stand taken by the Electoral Registration Officer based on the joint inspection conducted by him with the fourth respondent, has to be preferred over Ext.P5 report earlier given by the fourth respondent which is ambiguous in its terms.
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
9
In the said view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE
ds 29.10.2020
WPC No.22333 OF 2020
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE 3D RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT APPENDED TO EXHIBIT P1 SKETCH IN RESPECT OF WARD NUMBER 39 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT APPENDED TO EXHIBIT P1 SKETCH IN RESPECT OF WARD NUMBER 40 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE NOTE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO G2/728/20 DATED 22.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Electoral Registration Officer's conclusion on ward limits based on a joint inspection overrides the Municipal Engineer's earlier ambiguous report.
K.P. Noushad
The State Election Commission
The District Collector
Parappanangadi Municipality
The Assistant Engineer
Addl. Electoral Registration Officer
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
