Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL KAREEM.V.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38830 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, SHRI.RENOY VINCENT, SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI, SRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY, SRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK, FASLA N.K, SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN, SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN, SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM, SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, SHRI.JITHIN ALEXANDER SUNNY, SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K, SMT.AYISHA RISWANA
For the Respondents: SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SMT.DHANYA S NAIR, SHRI.RAHUL.S, SHRI.MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A, SHRI.PAULSON P.J, SHRI.GIJEESH PRAKASH, SRI K P SUDHEER, SC, SPL GP, SMT DEEPA K R
The court reiterated the necessity of providing a fair hearing in administrative proceedings, especially when decisions adversely affect rights established under statutory regulations.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment concerns the implementation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994, particularly related to the delimitation of electoral wards and voter inclusion criteria. Facts of the Case: The petitioners challenge the transposition of their names from Ward No.2 to Ward No.1 based on mistaken allegations, asserting their compliance with statutory procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was made, which contravenes principles of natural justice.
Issues: The key issue determined is whether the petitioners were denied a fair hearing regarding their transposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a hearing and due process, stating that once delimitation is finalized, inclusion on the voters list must respect those boundaries.
Result: Ext.P11 is set aside and the appellate authority is instructed to reconsider the appeal expeditiously, granting the petitioners a chance to be heard.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial setup and challenges of voter inclusion in electoral rolls. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nature of appeal process and rights of the petitioners. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's judgment on the requirement for a fair hearing. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
" i. Call for records leading to Ext.P11 order passed by the 6th Respondent;
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P11 order of the 6th Respondent as ex facie illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice;
iii. Declare that the inclusion of names of the 225 voters including the Petitioners herein included in Ext.P8 Part 1 of final voters list for Ward No.2 is correct and does not warrant any transposition;
iv. Declare that transposition of voters from one ward to another cannot be carried out on basis of allegations of vagueness in delimitation orders passed by the 3rd Respondent;
v. Declare that transposition of voters from one ward to another cannot be carried out on the basis of claims preferred by third parties as the same is in contravention to Rule 11 of the kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994;
vi. To dispense off with translation of vernacular documents to English; vii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice".
[SIC]
2. The Petitioners are permanent residents of Ward No.2 (Punnathala) of the 8th respondent Athavanad Grama Panchayat. On 15.05.2025, the 3rd respondent finalised the delimitation of wards in the 8th Respondent Grama Panchayat under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 vide Ext.P1 delimitation order, is the submission. As per Ext.P1, Ward No. 2 (Punnathala) was delimited with specific boundaries after compliance with the statutory procedure, including the draft notification, receipt and verification of objections, and an enquiry by the designated Enquiry Officer, is the further submission.
3. During the draft stage, Appendix 2A (Ext P2), identified house numbers 38–153 and 159–215 as part of Ward No.2, is the submission. An objection was raised by one Muhammed Basheer alleging vagueness in the western boundary due to the existence of two parallel roads bearing similar local names, is the further submission. After detailed verification, the Enquiry Officer rejected the objection as per Ext. P4, confirming that the disputed houses fell within Ward No.2 (Punnathala) itself. The delimitation process was thereafter concluded and attained finality with the issuance of Ext.P1 order, is the submission.
4. In line with the finalised boundaries, 225 voters including the petitioners were included in Part 1 of the draft voters list of Ward No.2 (Punnathala) is the further submission. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued Guidelines as evident by Ext.P5, clarifying that transposition of voters could only be carried out by the Electoral Registration Officer upon identifying defective inclusions, publishing a list, inviting objections, and passing final orders. Subsequently, one Mammu Master, who is additional respondent No.10, who according to the petitioners, is neither a resident of Ward No.1 nor a resident of Ward No.2, filed Ext.P6 complaint, alleging wrongful inclusion of 225 voters including the petitioners herein in the voters list of Ward No.2 that they ought to be in the list of Ward No.1. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.7 and 9, after due verification, rejected the complaint on 29.08.2025 as evident by Ext. P7, confirming that the impugned voters were residents of Ward No.2 as per the final delimitation, and hence transposition is not required. The final voters' list of Ward No.2 was published on 29.09.2025, as evident by Ext.P8; accordingly, the names of the petitioners and others are retained in Ward No.2.
5. Despite Ext. P7, the said Mammu Master
