Lukose Thottiyil vs The State Election Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 23820 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 SATURDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 27712 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          LUKOSE THOTTIYIL,
          AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. LUKOSE, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, RETIRED TEACHER,
          KUDIYANMALA P.O, NADUVIL (VIA), ERUVESSI AMSOM,
          TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 582

          BY ADVS.
          V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
          V.A.SATHEESH
          ANAND V.S



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
          VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033,
          REPRESENTED BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.

    2     RETURNING OFFICER,
          (NO.14-ERUVESSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH) ERUVESSI GRAMA
          PANCHAYATH, ERUVESSI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 632.

    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KUDIYANMALA P.O, KANNUR
          DISTRICT-670 582

    4     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION P.O, KANNUR 670 002.

    5     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670 002

          BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, ELECTION COMMISSION
          OF INDIA


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27712 OF 2021              2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a candidate

contesting the ensuing election to Ward No.14 of

Eruvessi Grama Panchayat on 07.12.2021.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the

petitioner alleges that the booths in question are

"sensitive" and that it has so considered in the

past also; and therefore, seeks that respondents 1

and 2 be directed to ensure that sufficient and

adequate police are requisitioned, through the 4th

respondent - District Police Chief, when the

elections are undergoing, so that it can be

completed in a peaceful manner. He also prays that

the 1st respondent - Election Commission be

directed to videograph the entire process.

3. Shri.Deepu Lal Mohan - learned Standing

Counsel for the Election Commission, submitted

that, as has been averred by his client in the

statement dated 03.12.2021, the Election Commission

is aware of the requirements of each booth and that

police Authorities have been sufficiently alerted

and requisitioned to afford adequate and effective

protection. He added that, as and when it becomes

necessary, videography can also be considered; but

that, normally, this is done only in a sensitive

booth; but that the ones involved in this case has

not been yet declared so, based on the relevant and

germane inputs. He, however, added that even when

the polling continues, if there are any issue which

renders the booth "sensitive" - in the sense of the

term - necessary action will be taken and that

videographers are always maintained as standby for

such purpose.

4. When I consider the afore submissions of

Shri.Deepu Lal Mohan, it is clear that no further

orders are required to be issued, since every

necessary measure has already been taken by the

Election Commission in the manner as they are

enjoined to do, as per the applicable Statues and

Regulations.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that necessary

police personnel are requisitioned through the 4th

respondent - District Police Chief; which Authority

shall do so on receiving the same, so as to ensure

that the ensuing Bye-Elections in the booths in

question, is conducted without any let or

interference from any person and without being

subjected to any unfair electoral practices.

As far as videography is concerned, I leave

full liberty to respondents 1 and 2 to take a

decision on this, depending upon the inputs they

are in possession of; for which purpose, the

petitioner is also at liberty to approach them

appropriately, if so required.

Needless to say, if any complaints are made

before the respondents 1 and 2 or the 4 th respondent

or such other police officers entrusted with the

task of overseeing the elections, by any person -

including the petitioner or any other candidate,

necessary action shall be taken swiftly and quickly

without any avoidable delay.

At this time, Shri.V.T.Madhavanunni, learned

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his

client has already approached the Returning Officer

seeking permission to videograph the polling process

at his own expense.

Shri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned Standing Counsel

for the Election Commission, confirmed this and

added that if the petitioner is so interested, he

must approach the District Election Officer today

itself and tender the requisite amounts; in which

event videography can be arranged.

I record the afore submissions of Shri.Deepu Lal

Mohan; and consequently, leave liberty to the

petitioner to approach the District Election Officer

for the afore purpose.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/4.12

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27712/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE'S IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 24.11.2021.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE R1(A) THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER B1-48223-2021-

SEC(1) DATED 12.11.2021ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA.

ANNEXURE R1(B) THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER B1-48223-2021-

SEC(1) DATED 12.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEFS.

ANNEXURE R1(C) THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.B1-48223-2021-

SEC(2)DATED 12.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICERS.

ANNEXURE R1(D) THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.G1-

36072/2021/KL DATED 25.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE R1(E) THE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.A/558/2021 DATED 3.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, KANNUR.