SNDP Branch No. 1341, Aduvassery v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 7240 of 2014 (D)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------** **1. SNDP BRANCH NO. 1341, ADUVASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KRISHNANKUTTY S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PALLIPATTUPARAMBIL** **SOUTH ADUVASSERY, PIN 683578 .** **2. SNDP BRANCH NO 1341, ADUVASSERY REP BY ITS SECRETARY, V.V RAVI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN RESIDING AT VANDANAM, ADUVASSERY,** **PARAVOOR, PIN- 683578** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM-690 001** **2. KERALA STATE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.** **3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ELECTION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.** **4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE PIN-682 030.** **5. TAHASILDAR, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN - 683 513.** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 7240 of 2014 (D) -2-** ## **6. VILLAGE OFFICER,** **KUNNAMKARA, PIN 685 378.** ## **7. SRI. SHAJI,** **S/O.GANGADHARAN, THOZTHUMPARAMBIL, SOUTH ADUVASSERY, PIN - 683 578** **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT** **BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, ELE. COMMISSION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** ## **WP(C).No. 7240 of 2014 (D)** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-05-2013 TO 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE LETTER TO 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 27-09-2013.** - **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE LETTER TO 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 8/1/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 15-01-2014 WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE PASTED ON THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONERS DT. 9-3-2014.** **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO RESPONDENT 2 AND OTHERS ON 09-03-2014.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **---------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.7240 of 2014** ## **-------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are the President and Secretary respectively of South Aduvassery SNDP Branch No.1341. In this writ petition they challenge Ext.P5 and seek the following reliefs: _“(i)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction call for the entire records in pursuant of to Exhibit P5 and peruse and quash the same._ _(ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents No.2 and 3 not to use petitioners building as polling station in the upcoming elections._ _(iii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or directions directing the 4[th] and 5[th] respondent to find out alternative polling station which are available in the near vicinity.”_ 2. By Ext.P5 letter dated 9.3.2014, which according to the petitioners, was affixed on the wall of their building, the Electoral Registration Officer of Paravur Taluk informed the petitioners that on account of unavailability of suitable buildings in the locality, Booth Nos.34 and 35 of Kalamasserry Assembly Constituency in Ernakulam Parliamentary Constituency will be located as in the previous years in the building belonging to South Aduvassery SNDP Branch No.1341. It is not in dispute that during the previous elections polling booths were located in an old building situate in the very same premises. It is also not in dispute that the old building was demolished and a new W.P.(C) No.7240/2014 2 building is being put up. The petitioners have raised two main grounds in the writ petition. The first is that the ground floor has already been let out to a person for running a textile shop. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 rent deed in support of the said contention. The second contention is that three other alternative buildings are available in the locality. It is stated that a Government aided Madrassa is situate within 200 meters of the building belonging to the South Aduvassery SNDP Branch No.1341; a building belonging to NSS which is being let out for public functions is available within 100 meters and an auditorium belonging to a temple which was used by Government for addahar screening and other public purposes is available within 500 meters. During the course of arguments today, yet another contention was raised that the building belonging to South Aduvassery SNDP Branch No.1341, is a place having religious significance and therefore, for that reason also, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 2. A statement dated 13.3.2014 has been filed on behalf of respondents 2, 4 and 5. It is stated therein that after the elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly were held in the year 2011, the old building was demolished by the petitioners and in its place a new double storied building constructed. It is stated that the Village 3 W.P.(C) No.7240/2014 Officer, Kunnukara after inspection of the building has filed a report dated 10.6.2013 to the effect that concreting works on the ground floor and the first floor is over and though the work is not fully completed, the building can be used as a polling booth in the said condition itself. It is stated that thereupon the Tahsildar reported to the District Collector/District Election Officer on 12.6.2013 that the building can be put to use as polling stations with temporary booth arrangements and accordingly the building was included in the list of polling stations sent for approval to the Election Commission of India. It is also stated that the alternative accommodations pointed out by the petitioners are not suitable. The respondents have stated that the building attached to the Madrassa and the temple auditorium cannot be used as polling booths. As regards the building belonging to the NSS, it is stated that it has an area of only 20 Sq.meters and that for two polling booths the area required is 40 Sq.meters. 3. I heard Sri.V.S.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the Chief Electoral Officer. Shorn of details, three contentions are raised, two in the pleadings and one during the course of arguments today. The first of the contentions is that the ground floor of the building has been let out to another and therefore W.P.(C) No.7240/2014 4 the premises cannot be put to use as a polling booth. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 rent deed in support of the said contention. Apart from the fact that two stamp papers have been purchased from different sub treasuries, the petitioners have not disclosed the date on which the stamp papers were purchased. In such circumstances, though the documents bears the date 15.1.2014, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioners that they have parted with possession of the building to a tenant. The Village Officer, Kunnukara has in his report dated 10.6.2013 submitted to the Tahsildar, North Paravur which was made available to me for perusal, stated as follows: “µáKáµø ÕßçÜï¼ßW µ{ÎçÛøß ÈßçÏÞºµÎmÜ¢ æÄçA ¥¿áÕÞçÛøß (É¿ßEÞùáÍÞ·¢) ÌâJí ÈOV 34, æÄçA ¥¿áÕÞçÛøß (µßÝAáÍÞ·¢) ÌâJí ÈOV 35 ®KßÕ æÄçA ¥¿áÕÞçÛøß SNDP æµGß¿JßW dÉÕVJߺîáÕKßøáKÄá¢, ¿ß æµGß¿¢ æÉÞ{ߺîí ÉáÄßÏ æµGß¿¢ ¦ ØñÜJáÄæK ÉÃßÄáæµÞIßøßAáKÄᢠ1©¢ 2 ©¢ ÈßܵZ çµÞYdµàxí æºÏñáµÝßEßGáUÄáÎÞÃ^.å®KÞW æµGß¿Jßæa ÍßJß æµGßØ¢øfߺîá çÉÞøÞæÄ ÄáùØÞÏߵ߿AáKÄᢠÈßÜÕßW æµGß¿Jßæa ®ÜïÞåÕßÇ ÉÃßµ{ᢠÈßVJßÕºîßGáUÄÞÏß çÈøßGá ¥çÈb×ߺîÄßW ÈßKᢠçÌÞÇcæÉGßGáUÄᢠæµGß¿Jßæa ÉÃß ÉâVJàµøߺîßGßæÜCßÜᢠÄÞWµÞÜßµ Ø¢ÕßÇÞÈJßÜâæ¿ ÈßÜÕßÜáU ÍâJáµZ §ÜfX ØÎÏJí ©ÉçÏÞ·ßAÞÕáKÄÞæÃKáÎáU ÕßÕø¢ çÎWÈ¿É¿ßµZAÞÏß ùßçMÞVGÞAß ØÎVMßAáKá.” ## 4. It is evident from the report filed by the Village Officer that as on today the tenant is not in possession of the building. I therefore find no merit or force in he submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the ground floor of the building has been entrusted to and is in possession of a tenant. As regards the contention that the 5 W.P.(C) No.7240/2014 building is a place having religious significane, this Court has in **Bharghavan v. Thankappan** (1989 (1) KLT 719) held that Gurumandirams where statue of Sree Narayana Guru is installed are not temples. In the instant case, as noticed earlier, apart from an incomplete structure there is nothing in the ground floor or first floor of the building which qualifies it to be called as a building of religious worship or place of religious significance. I accordingly overrule the said contention as well. 5. Two of the alternate buildings pointed out by the petitioners are a Madrassa and Temple auditorium. In the handbook issued by the Election Commission of India to Polling Officers it is stated that no polling station should be located in police stations, hospitals, temples or places having religious significance. Therefore two of the buildings pointed out by the petitioner cannot be put to use as polling stations. The only other building available is the building belonging to NSS which admittedly has an area of only 20 Sq. meters. The area required for two polling booths is 40 Sq. meters. The said building is therefore not suitable for locating the polling booths. 6. The handbook also stipulates that as far as possible polling stations should be set up in the ground floor of a building to be old age friendly and disabled friendly. It is also stipulated that ramps should W.P.(C) No.7240/2014 6 be provided to facilitate the old and the physically challenged persons. The building now pointed out is the ground floor of the building, the construction of which is yet to be completed. The respondents can easily convert it to polling stations by temporary arrangements. The respondents are the best judges of the situation and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit in appeal over their wisdom. In any case as the building is required only for a few days, no inconvenience whatsoever will be caused to the petitioners. Therefore for that reason also, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps