Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2803 (KER)

Ashraf Pulukkool S/o Muhammed v. State of Kerala

2025-11-14

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The appellants filed W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith reconsider and revise the polling station allocation for Ward Nos.9 and 11 of the 6 th respondent Pariyaram Grama Panchayat, strictly in accordance with the binding guidelines, i.e., Ext.P5 guidelines dated 25.01.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent State Election Commission; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 and 5 to fix Government Commercial Institute, Nelliparamb, as a polling station for voters in Ward No.9 or any other premises which qualify the mandates of Ext.P5 guidelines; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 and 5 to fix St. Joseph’s School, Pushpagiri, as the polling station for voters in Ward No.11 or any other premises which qualify the mandate of Ext.P5 guidelines; declare that the proposal to designate Thalora A.L.P. School in Ward No.11 as the common polling station for both Ward Nos.9 and 11 is arbitrary and violative of the binding guidelines and infringing the fundamental rights of the voters of Ward Nos.9 and 11 under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appellants-petitioners are permanent residents of the Pariyaram Grama Panchayat. In the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent State Election Commission filed a statement dated 14.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to R2(c) documents. The 7 th respondent Secretary of the 6 th respondent Pariyaram Grama Panchayat has also filed a counter affidavit dated 23.08.2025, producing therewith Ext.R7(1) to Ext.R7(7) documents. The learned Standing Counsel for 2 nd respondent State Election Commission has filed an additional statement dated 11.09.2025, producing therewith Annexures R2(d) to R2(g) documents. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 04.08.2025, producing therewith Exts.P13 to P21 documents. 3. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 29.10.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025 along with the connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.26619 of 2025. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 04.08.2025, producing therewith Exts.P13 to P21 documents. 3. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 29.10.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025 along with the connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.26619 of 2025. The learned Single Judge noted that the stand in the counter affidavit filed by the 7 th respondent, who is the Secretary of the 6 th respondent Pariyaram Grama Panchayat, that Thalora A.L.P. School in Ward No.11 is a public building that meets all the statutory and logistical requirements of a polling station, including the availability of disabled-friendly access, drinking water and other necessary amenities. The said school is located within 1 km radius of the Thalora region of Ward No.9 and is within 2 km radius of the other wards of the said region. The alternative suggestions made by the petitioners to designate a Government Commercial Institute for Ward No. 9 and Pushpagiri St. Joseph High School for Ward No. 11 were also considered. As stated in the counter filed by the 2 nd respondent State Election Commission, the Commission called for and obtained reports from the 7 th respondent Secretary of Pariyaram Grama Panchayat, as evidenced by Annexure R2(a). After analysing the objections raised by the petitioners and also the report submitted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, Annexure R2(c) order was passed by the State Election Commission, in which the grievance of the petitioners was also considered in detail and the same was rejected. The learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the State Election Commission. The learned Single Judge observed that locating the place of polling booths, considering the convenience of the voters, is the discretion of the authority concerned. Unless there is malice, allegation of collusion, etc., the High Court need not interfere with the same, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025, the appellants-petitioners are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 5. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025, the appellants-petitioners are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission and State Delimitation Commission for respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for Pariyaram Grama Panchayat for respondents 6 and 7. 6. The document produced as Annexure R2(c), along with the statement dated 14.07.2025 filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the 2 nd respondent State Election Commission in W.P.(C)No.24148 of 2025, is an order dated 14.07.2025 of the State Election Commission, whereby the request made by the 1 st appellant-1 st petitioner for shifting the polling station stands rejected, wherein it is stated that Thalora A.L.P. School, which has been identified as polling station by the Secretary for Ward Nos.9 and 11, is adequate. The appellants-petitioners have not chosen to challenge Annexure R2(c) order dated 14.07.2025 of the State Election Commission before the appropriate forum. 7. In Kanaka Ramulamma v. Collector, AIR 2001 AP 456 , a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with a case in which the petitioners questioned the action of the respondents in setting up a polling booth for the voters of Vengalapuram revenue village at Utlapallivaripalem hamlet, purported to be situated in Yerrareddypalem Gram Panchayat, as arbitrary and illegal. The contention raised by the petitioners was that the distance between the villages Yerrareddypalem and Vengalapuram is about 2.25 kilometers. Yerrareddypalem Gram Panchayat consists of Yerrareddypalem revenue village, Utlapallivaripalem hamlet of Yerrareddypalem village and Vengalapuram revenue village. The said Gram Panchayat was constituted in the year 1995. The total number of voters in Yerrareddypalem is about 380, and the total number of voters in Utlapallivaripalem is about 470. The distance between Utlapallivaripalem and Vengalapuram is about 4 kilometers. Previously, Vengalapuram was set up in survey No.212, and thereafter the entire village was shifted to survey Nos.201 and 111. It was contended that, during the last general and panchayat elections, a polling booth was set up at Yerrareddypalem, and the number of the said polling booth was 25/117. The distance between Utlapallivaripalem and Vengalapuram is about 4 kilometers. Previously, Vengalapuram was set up in survey No.212, and thereafter the entire village was shifted to survey Nos.201 and 111. It was contended that, during the last general and panchayat elections, a polling booth was set up at Yerrareddypalem, and the number of the said polling booth was 25/117. As a result of setting up the polling booth at Utlapallivaripalem, now 500 voters of Vengalapuram village have to walk 4 kilometers to cast their votes. 7.1. In Kanaka Ramulamma, AIR 2001 AP 456 , the Division Bench noted that the State Election Commission, by Circular dated 02.08.2000 issued guidelines as regards determination of number of polling stations, location of polling stations, publication of the list of polling stations in draft, final publication of the list of polling stations and publicity, modifications in the list, supply of copies of the lists and number of copies of list of polling stations to be printed. As per the notification, the relevant provisions for the location of polling stations are clauses (b), (c) and (d) of para 2, which read thus: “2. Location of Polling Stations.- xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) The actual site of each Polling Station should be chosen carefully in advance, and arrangements have to be made, in order to make the polling station satisfy the requirements of practical convenience. Provision of all requirements should be completed at least one day before the day of Poll; (c) To the extent practicable, Polling Stations should be located at the same place where it was located in the last General Elections, so that the voters could go and cast their votes at the place already familiar to them; (d) Polling Station should be set up in such a manner that ordinarily no voter is required to travel more than two KMs, for casting vote. However, in scarcely populated hilly or forest areas, this norm may have to be relaxed. In order to avoid voters having to walk unduly long distances, polling stations, in such cases, may have to be set up for a smaller number of voters.” 7.2. In Kanaka Ramulamma, AIR 2001 AP 456 , the Division Bench noted that, in terms of the provisions of para 3 of Circular dated 02.08.2000, such polling stations, which are to be set up, are required to be published in draft. In Kanaka Ramulamma, AIR 2001 AP 456 , the Division Bench noted that, in terms of the provisions of para 3 of Circular dated 02.08.2000, such polling stations, which are to be set up, are required to be published in draft. Para 3 reads thus: 3. Publication of the List of Polling Stations in Draft: The Mandal Parishad Development Officer is responsible for the preparation of the draft list of polling stations. He should prepare at least 6 copies of the draft list of polling stations for each Gram Panchayat in the Mandal and publish the draft list by exhibiting it at the following places. 1) At the Office of the Mandal Parishad Development Officer. 2) At the Office of the Gram Panchayat. 3) 2 other prominent places/public buildings in the Gram Panchayat, e.g., School Building, Village chavadi, etc. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer should thereafter examine suggestions received from the public and amend the draft list, wherever found necessary, and submit proposals to the District Election Authority for final approval of the list.” Only after the District Election Authority approves the list of polling stations, final list of polling stations shall be published. However, by clauses (a) and (b) of para 5 of the notification, it is provided as follows; “5. MODIFICATIONS IN THE LIST “(a) Changes in the location of polling stations originally chosen may become necessary if the owner of the building originally proposed for a polling station has since become a contesting candidate or a strong sympathiser for a candidate, or on account of any natural calamity. All such cases warranting changes in polling stations should be reported to the District Collector. (b) Once the lists of polling stations are finally approved, requests for shifting of the polling stations from one site to another should be considered only if there are overriding considerations of public convenience. The District Collector may, in such cases, consult the contesting candidates and make modifications only where he is satisfied that it is absolutely necessary.” The Division Bench noted that insofar as the final list of polling stations for Lingasamudram Mandal Parishad is concerned, in relation to Yerrareddypalem, which is at Sl.No. 14, it is stated that almost 70% people of Yerrareddi Palem village are dwelling near Vutlavari-palem. So, it is convenient to put the polling station at Vutlavari-palem. 7.3. So, it is convenient to put the polling station at Vutlavari-palem. 7.3. In Kanaka Ramulamma, AIR 2001 AP 456 , the Division Bench held that the High Court, in exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can neither go into the aforementioned question, nor set aside the constitution of polling booths having regard to the fact that in terms of clauses (b), (c) and (d) of para 2 of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission, only a directory provision has been made. Such guidelines, which are in the nature of instructions, cannot be enforced for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. The Division Bench ordered that it is for the District Collector, Prakasam District, to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in terms of the provisions contained under para 5 of the said guidelines. 8. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, by Annexure R2(c) order dated 14.07.2025 of the State Election Commission, the request made by the 1 st appellant-1 st petitioner for shifting the polling station stands rejected, wherein it is stated that Thalora A.L.P. School, which has been identified as polling station by the Secretary for Ward Nos.9 and 11, is adequate. The appellants have not chosen to challenge Annexure R2(c) order dated 14.07.2025 of the State Election Commission before the appropriate forum. 9. The question relating to the location of polling stations is purely a question of fact and is within the exclusive purview of the authorities conducting the elections. It is not for the High Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to adjudicate upon such aspects. Since the High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in an appeal against the decision of the authorities on the question relating to the location of polling stations, the Court must confine its jurisdiction to examine the decision-making process and not to the legality of the decision. In the above circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.24148 of 2025. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.