Full Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
1. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 5 in the Kavalangad Grama Panchayath. In the previous election held in the year 2005, there were 17 wards in the said Panchayath and now a new ward namely, Thadikulam is formed for which 133 families from the old Ward No. 5 (Vallanchira) and 133 families from old Ward No. 6 (Akolichal) and 130 families from old Ward No. 4 (Oonnukal) were grouped together.
2. The petitioner's contention is that for the last three consecutive elections, they were under a reserved ward. Therefore, he has filed a representation before the District Collector to exclude the present ward from the process of fixing the reserved ward.
3. The petitioner is relying upon the general guidelines issued by the Election Commission as per Exhibit P2 in this regard wherein it is provided that the wards which were reservation wards for the last election held in 2005 will automatically be converted as general wards and the reservation ward for the coming election will be selected from the general wards in the last election.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is pointed out that only 17.5% of the population of the erstwhile ward No. 5 (reserved ward) has come to the newly constituted Thadikulam ward. The rest of the population in the newly constituted ward were in general ward during the last election. The fact that 133 families in the erstwhile ward No. 5 were in reserved ward in the earlier election is admitted in the statement. The guidelines relied upon by the petitioner also emphasize the fact that to exempt one of the wards which was treated as a reserved ward in the earlier election, at least 50% of the population of the reserved ward should be included in the newly formed ward pursuant to the delimitation process. This is clear from paragraph 1 of Exhibit P2. It is also mentioned that if the population is less than 50%, such wards can be included when lots are taken for fixing reserved wards. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission that the grievance raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by the authority concerned.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed for a direction to the District Collector to consider the matter in the light of the guidelines that is prevalent today. The grievance raised by the petitioner is not one which is covered by the provisions of the said guidelines also.
In that view of the matter, the inclusion of the new ward, if any, in the process of fixing the reserved ward cannot be said to be illegal or against the guidelines issued.
This writ petition is therefore dismissed.