STATE ELECTION COMMISSION Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of the State Election Commission and the Electoral Registration Officer for Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat, is directed against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge in C. M. P. No. 44609 of 2000 in O. P. no. 24450 of 2000. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 1219 herein claiming themselves to be ordinarily residents in Ward Nos. 4, 7 and 8 of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat. They sought a declaration that petitioners 1 to 131, 132 to 483 and 484 to 1219 are entitled for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll for Ward Nos. 7, 8 and 4 respectively of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat. There was a further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 in the Original Petition to include their names in the respective wards, thereby enabling them to cast vote in the ensuing election for the local bodies. Apart from the above, they sought a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P10 to P1299 orders rejecting their request to be included in the voters' list.

(2.) Petitioners contended that their applications for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll of Ward Nos. 4, 7 and 8 of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat were wrongly rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer viz., fourth respondent in the Original Petition. So also, according to them, dismissal of the appeals filed before the Deputy Director of Panchayats was unsustainable in law. C. M. P. No. 41209 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners in the Original Petition praying for an interim direction to respondents 2 and 4 to permit the petitioners to cast their votes in the forthcoming election to the Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat. In the above petition, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.8.2000 permitting the petitioners in the Original Petition to file individual applications before the fourth respondent under S.24 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act) and the fourth respondent was directed to pass orders on those applications within a period of 5 days from the date of receipt of such applications. Subsequently, petitioners filed C. M. P. No. 42916 of 2000 on 30.8.2000 complaining that the fourth respondent was not accepting the applications submitted by them. On 31.8.2000, a learned Single Judge passed an order directing fourth respondent to accept all the applications submitted by the petitioners in the Original Petitions before 5.00 p.m. on 31.8.2000. It is the case of the fourth respondent that all the above mentioned applications received on 28.8.2000, 30.8.2000 and 31.8.2000 were considered on merits and disposed of on 1.9.2000 rejecting the claims put forward by the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners filed C. M. P. No. 44609 of 2000.

(3.) The contention raised by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of C. M. P. No. 44609 of 2000 was that there was no proper disposal of their applications by the fourth respondent, rejection of their claim is arbitrary and that they were not individually served with copies of the orders rejecting their applications. The petitioners, therefore, prayed in the above petition that they may be permitted to cast their votes provisionally in the forthcoming election to various constituencies of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat after keeping separate ballot boxes pending disposal of the Original Petition. On the above application, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents in the Original Petition that the names of 1144 petitioners, who had submitted applications in Form No. 4, should be incorporated in the electoral roll of the Panchayat as separate groups against appropriate wards so as to make them eligible to cast their votes. The respondents were to issue consequential directions to the polling officers to keep the votes cast by the petitioners in separate boxes. There is a further direction by learned Single Judge that counting of votes of any of the wards of the Panchayat should not be undertaken. The C. M. P. and the O. P. were then posted for further orders on 28.9.2000. Aggrieved by the above directions given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.9.2000, respondents 2 and 4 in the Original Petition have filed this appeal.