Venugopalan V.R vs The Secretary, State Election Commission and Others

P.N. Ravindran, J.—Ext.P4 order passed by the fourth respondent declining to entertain Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner, wherein he had objected to the rotation adopted in the matter of reserving constituencies for women and SC/ST candidates is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the fourth respondent held that he has no jurisdiction or authority to enquire into Ext.P2 and that the petitioner should move the Government or the State Election Commission seeking redressal of his grievances.

When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri. Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, relying on Ext.P1 guidelines issued by it, submitted that the Regional Joint Director (Urban Affairs) has been authorised by the State Election Commission to identify constituencies which are to be reserved for women or SC/ST candidates and that the procedure for identifying the constituencies has also been laid down in the said guidelines. The learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the fourth respondent cannot therefore be sustained. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent also concurs with the said submission.

In such circumstances, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to enquire into Ext.P2 complaint, in accordance with law, and take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously, and in any event, on or before 4.9.2010. The fourth respondent shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person, on the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the fourth respondent.

Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, today itself.