POOMAYIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the order in Na. Ka. A3/408/03 dated 28. 4. 2003 and to quash the same and to direct respondents 1 to 3 herein to amend the Vennathur Panchayat Electoral Roll, Ward No. IV by deleting the name of the fourth respondent in Sl. No. 294.

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Sambai village/ward No. III, Vennathur village panchayat. During the Local Body Election of 2001, the petitioner contested and lost the election. In the said election, the fourth respondent was elected as President of Vennathur Panchayat. As per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995, the electoral roll of the Panchayat shall be prepared by the Panchayat Electoral Registration Officer, and the electoral roll shall be published, and only when such names are published, it becomes electoral roll, as per Rule 20. If there is any omission or objection to any entry in the roll, it can be made to the Electoral Registration Officer under Rule 21. The fourth respondent is the permanent resident of Devipattinam village panchayat and her name is included in the Devipattinam Panchayat electoral roll in Sl. No. 581; her husband owns a house in that village and he is having a voter identity card given by the panchayat. While so, the name of the fourth respondent was wrongly included in the Vennathur Panchayat in Sl. No. 294. When the fourth respondent is the permanent resident of Devipattinam Panchayat, the inclusion of her name in Vennathur Panchayat is an error. Name of an individual cannot be entered into two electoral rolls of two different panchayats. Hence, inclusion of the fourth respondent's name in Vennathur Panchayat electoral roll is a wrong entry. Hence, name of the fourth respondent in Vennathur electoral roll is to be deleted. As per Rule 21, the petitioner lodged the objections to respondents 1 and 3 against the entry of the name of the fourth respondent in Vennathur Panchayat electoral roll as early as on 31. 8. 2002 seeking to amend the roll by deleting the name of the fourth respondent. But, that objection was not considered and necessary amendment in the electoral roll was not made. Hence, she filed WP No. 2206/03. By Order dated 28. 1. 2003, this Court directed the respondents therein to deal with the objection filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, she made an application. But, no orders were passed within the stipulated period. The impugned order is passed without application of mind and is against Rule 21 of the Panchayat Rules, which permits any persons to make objections at any point of time after publication of the electoral roll under Rule 20. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) THE Commissioner of Ramanathapuram Panchayat Union has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the panchayat electoral roll was prepared based on the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly Constituency concerned and without any orders from the Legislative Assembly Constituency Electoral Registration Officer concerned (R. D. O. /sub-Collector) no addition/deletion should be made in the electoral roll of the panchayat. The panchayat election has been conducted in October,2001. The petitioner should have given an objection in respect of the fourth respondent to the Assembly Electoral Registration Officer. But, that was not done till the election was over. No complaint was given to the Election Officer in respect of the fourth respondent. In WP No. 2206 of 2003, the Collector of Ramanathapuram was directed to dispose of the representation given by the petitioner. The District Collector had instructed that the petition, if any, for deletion or inclusion of names in the electoral roll of the panchayat can be entertained by the Electoral Registration Officer of the panchayat. As per the above instructions, the petitioner was properly informed by the Panchayat Electoral Registration Officer and the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Ramanathapuram. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 28. 4. 2003 informed that the petitioner should approach the Electoral Registration Officer of the Assembly constituency for the settlement of her objection. Further, it is stated in the counter that the fourth respondent is the native of Muthuraghunathapuram, within the jurisdiction of Vennathur panchayat in Ward No. 4. Therefore, the fourth respondent's name is found in the electoral roll of Vennathur panchayat. After the election was over, the petitioner objected to the fourth respondent's election stating that she was not within the jurisdiction of Vennathur panchayat. However, no objection was filed to the Electoral Officer before election. Therefore, only an election petition could be filed. petitioner has objected the fourth respondent's election only after the election was over. The fourth respondent does not suppress any fact before the Election Officer.