V R VENUGOPALAN Vs. SECRETARY TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 27 of Tripunithura Municipality. He is also the Councillor representing Ward No. 27 of Tripunithura Municipality. Ward No. 27 was an unreserved constituency during the elections held in the year 2005. It is stated that the first petitioner intends to contest the ensuing elections from the same constituency, which is presently Ward No. 39. The second petitioner is a member of a scheduled caste community (Pulaya) and a resident of Ward No. 8 of Tripunithura Municipality.

(2.) In this writ petition, petitioners challenge Ext. P6 proceedings issued by the Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs, Kochi, by which the said authority rejected the objections raised by the first petitioner to allotment / reservation of seats in favour of scheduled caste candidates including women candidates under the provisions of Art.243(T) of the Constitution of India read with S.6(9) and S.69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The petitioners state that during the elections held in the year 2005, Tripunithura Municipality consisted of 51 constituencies of which 15 seats were reserved for women candidates, 6 seats were reserved for scheduled caste women candidates, and 4 seats were reserved for scheduled caste candidates other than women; that after the delimitation exercise, the number of constituencies stands reduced to 49; that the number of seats to be reserved for scheduled caste candidates and for scheduled caste women candidates was rightly fixed as 3 each, but in identifying the constituencies to be reserved, the State Election Commission did not take into account the 15 constituencies which were reserved in favour of women in the last elections (2005) while identifying the three constituencies to be reserved for schedule caste candidates other than women and in excluding 3 constituencies reserved for scheduled caste candidates other than women while identifying the 22 constituencies to be reserved for women candidates in the ensuing elections. It is contended that the procedure followed by the State Election Commission is arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, requires to be interfered with.

(3.) Sri. Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has filed a statement dated 13/09/2010. The said statement discloses that 21 constituencies which were reserved constituencies during the last elections (2005) were excluded for the purpose of identifying the constituencies to be reserved for scheduled caste candidates including scheduled caste women and women candidates; that Ward Nos. 26, 30 and 40 were identified and reserved for scheduled caste women candidates; that Ward Nos. 26, 32 and 47 were identified and reserved for scheduled caste candidates other than women and that the remaining 22 constituencies which were not reserved constituencies in the last elections were reserved for women candidates. It is stated that after the 21 constituencies which were reserved constituencies during the last elections were excluded, Ward Nos. 26, 30 and 40 were identified and reserved for scheduled caste women candidates by draw of lots from among the 28 remaining constituencies; that the wards to be reserved for scheduled caste candidates other than women were identified and reserved by draw of lots from the remaining 25 constituencies and that after the draw of lots was held as aforesaid for scheduled caste candidates including women, the remaining 22 wards were reserved for women. Annexure - C produced along with the statement is the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs, the fourth respondent in the writ petition, determining the wards to be reserved for women / SC candidates including women. It is contended that in view of the provisions in Art.243(ZG) of the Constitution of India, the allotment of seats made by the fourth respondent is immune from challenge.