High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed

Biju K.K. v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.23079 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K.M. Joseph
Judgment Date
2007-08-21
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Biju K.K.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions
  • Chief Election Commissioner, Office of the Election Commission
  • Returning Officer, represented by the District Collector, Revenue Recovery, Kottayam
  • Madapally Block Panchayat, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Santan V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Murali Purushothaman
  • • Sri K. J. Mohammed Anzar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition (C). No. 23079 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala, filed by Biju K.K., a member of the Scheduled Caste community, challenging the conduct of elections in Madappally Block Panchayat. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent (Chief Election Commissioner) and 4th respondent (Madappally Block Panchayat) to first conduct elections to fill the vacant Industrial Nagar Division seat of the Block Panchayat and thereafter to conduct elections to the vacant post of Block Panchayat President. The President’s post is reserved for Scheduled Castes, and the death of a President-created casual vacancy prompted the issue. Petitioner argued that, in the absence of filling the casual vacancy, elections to the President’s post should be postponed, or at least that the vacancy should be filled before the President’s election. Respondents relied on Section 153(16) of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules 4 and 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules 1995, as well as Section 149(3) and Section 153(14)(a), to contend that elections for casual vacancies and for President should be conducted in a timely manner under the applicable rules. The High Court, after considering the statutory framework, held that elections to the President must be held as soon as a vacancy occurs, and there is no basis to delay the President’s election in order to fill a casual vacancy. The petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 153(16) of the Panchayat Raj ActRule 4 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules 1995Rule 5 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules 1995Section 149(3) of the Panchayat Raj ActSection 153(14A) of the Panchayat Raj ActThird proviso to Section 153(4)(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that because the President’s post is reserved for the Scheduled Caste community, and because a casual vacancy has arisen due to the death of a President, the election to the President should not be held until the casual vacancy is filled, or at least the election to fill the casual vacancy should proceed without delay. He relies on sections and rules governing elections to argue for orderly filling of vacancies before or concurrently with the President’s election.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that casual vacancies must be filled in a timely manner under Rule 5(2) and Section 149(3), and that the President’s election need not be postponed due to a separate casual vacancy by-election. They contend that Rule 5(2) contemplates timely convening of elections after vacancy occurs and that there is no mandate to delay the President’s election on account of filling a casual vacancy, even when the President is from the Scheduled Caste community.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shaila v. Kerala State Election Commission2002(3)KLT 857Mentioned OnlyCited by petitioner as precedent; the court did not apply or distinguish it, but notes it as part of the argument without altering the holding.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Biju K.K. v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2007 / 30TH SRAVANA 1929 BIJU K.K., KALLIKKULAM HOUSE, KOLLAMURI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. 4. MADAPALLY BLOCK PANCHAYAT, BLOCK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MADAPALLY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MADAPALLY BLOCK PANCHAYAT. - BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE ## **K.M.JOSEPH, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C).No. 23079 OF 2007** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner has approached this court seeking a mandamus to the 2[nd] and 4[th] respondent to first conduct election to the vacant seat of Industrial Nagar Division of the Madappally Block Panchayat and after that to conduct election to the vacant post of the Block Panchayat President. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 2[nd] and 4[th] respondents to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 representations. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a member of the scheduled caste community. Term of office of the committee of the 4[th] respondent-Panchayat started from 02-10-2005 and is continuing till date. The post of President is reserved for the scheduled caste community. One member was elected as President and he met with an accident and died on 15/07/2007. According to the petitioner hasty steps are taken to elect President from the present members . This is done without seeking to fill up the vacancy which arose WPC No.23079/07 2 consequent upon the death of a member of the scheduled caste community who was elected as the President, it is stated. According to the petitioner, unless casual vacancy is filled up, there cannot be election to fill up the post of President of the Bharana Samiti. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would point out that election to the casual vacancy of President is governed by Section 153(16). It provides that as follows: “any casual vacancy arising in the office of the President or Vice-President of a Panchayat shall be reported to the State Election Commission in such manner as may be prescribed and the State Election Commission shall take steps for the conduct of election of President or Vice-President as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. 3. Thereafter, learned counsel relies on Rule 4 of The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules 1995. Rule 4 provides as follows: “ The manner of and the time limit for WPC No.23079/07 3 intimation of casual vacancies:- The Secretary concerned shall report to the State Election Commission the casual vacancy occurring in the office of the President or Vice-President of the Panchayat within one week from the occurrence of the vacancy”. 4. Rule 5 provides for the manner of convening of election meeting. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 is relevant and it is extracted hereunder: “ Such meeting shall be convened, in the case of an ordinary vacancy, within three weeks from the date of publication of the names of members by the State Election Commission and in the case of the casual vacancy, as soon as after the occurrence of the vacancy, on such date as may be fixed by the State Election Commission.” 5. He would rely on section 149(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 149(3) provides as follows: “ A casual vacancy in the office of a member of Panchayat at any level shall be filled by the State Election Commission, within six months after the occurrence of the vacancy, through a by-election.” 6. Section 153 (14 a) is also relied on by the WPC No.23079/07 4 ## respondent. It reads as follows: “ The validity of the election of the President or the Vice-President of a Panchayat shall not be called in question for the reason of any vacancy in the place of the members or who shall elect President or Vice-President for the reason of the absence of any member.” 7. He would point out that for conducting election in the casual vacancy, procedures have to be followed including revision of electoral roll. It is the contention of the respondent therefore that as far as the election to the post of President is concerned Rule 5(2) already referred to contemplates that casual vacancy to be filled up as soon as after the occurrence of vacancy. He would further contend that in fact it is a case where another member from the scheduled caste community is available. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on third proviso to Section 153 ( 4) (d). It reads as follows: “ Provided also that the office of President of any Panchayat shall be reserved for the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes or women belonging to them only if at least one constituency of that Panchayat is reserved for that category.” WPC No.23079/07 5 Of course this provision is enacted to see that there is a member from the scheduled caste community in a case where there is reservation for the post of President of the Panchayat. In this case in fact apart from the person who was holding the post there is another member who is from the scheduled caste community. It would appear that the law does not contemplate that the election to the post of President should be postponed till a casual vacancy is filled up. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this court in **Shaila v. Kerala State Election Commission** ( 2002(3)KLT 857). That was a case under the Municipalities Act. On consideration of the entire matter, I would think that counsel for the respondent is correct in contending that the election to the post of President has to be done as soon as the vacancy occurs within the meaning of Rule 5 (2) and it need not brook any delay on account of the election to fill up a casual vacancy. I would further think that this general principle need not be deviated on the basis of the fact that vacancy of President is to be filled up from the members of the scheduled caste community. The vacancy can only be filled up from the members WPC No.23079/07 6 of the scheduled caste community. There is another person available from the scheduled caste community. In such circumstances, I do not think there is any basis for interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. **(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)** sv. WPC No.23079/07 7