Kerala High Court

Nazar Pareed vs Kerala State Election Commission on 4 November, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                    1
WA No.2630 of 2025
                                                        2025:KER:83596

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                    &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

    TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                           WA NO. 2630 OF 2025

          AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN WP(C) NO.38248 OF 2025

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANTS:

      1       NAZAR PAREED
              AGED 58 YEARS
              S/O. PAREED, KUDIYIRIKKAL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR
              P.O, COCHIN, PIN - 682033

      2       ABDULLA
              AGED 51 YEARS
              S/O. EBRAHIM, KIZHAKKE ANJIKKATH, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR
              P.O, COCHIN - 682033.


              BY ADVS.
              SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
              SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
              SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
              SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
              SMT.AYSHA E.M.
              SHRI.RISHI VINCENT
              SHRI.M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN
              SMT.P.LAKSHMI
              SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
              SHRI.HASHIM K.M.
              SHRI.MANU KRISHNA S.K.
              SMT.HANIYA NAFIZA V.S.
                                    2
WA No.2630 of 2025
                                                       2025:KER:83596


RESPONDENTS:

      1       KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
              CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN
              - 695033

      2       THE JOINT DIRECTOR
              OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
              DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI -
              682030.

      3       KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O,
              COCHIN, PIN - 682033


              BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
              COMMISSION, KERALA

              SMT. DEEPA K.R, SPL. GP;
              SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER, SC, KALAMASEERY MUNICIPALITY


       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                             3
WA No.2630 of 2025
                                                                        2025:KER:83596


                                  JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The appellants, who are registered voters of Kalamassery

Municipality and permanent residents of Ward No.32 of said

Municipality, filed W.P.(C)No.38248 of 2025, under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Call for the records leading to the identification of reserved wards in the ensuing election to Kalamassery Municipality to be held in 2025;

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other order or direction quashing Ext.P7 Proceedings of the 2nd respondent to the extent it identifies and declares Ward No.32 as a Ward reserved for Women and all further proceedings pursuant to the same;

iii) declare that the inclusion of Ward No.32 of Kalamassery Municipality as a Ward/seat reserved for Women in the ensuing Municipal Election is illegal, arbitrarily and unconstitutional;

iv) declare that the attempt to include Ward No.32 of Kalamassery Municipality as a reserved seat for women or any other reserved category for the ensuing Municipal Election is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional;

v) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents to exclude ward No.32 of Kalamassery Municipality from the reserved seats for Women or any other reserved category for the ensuing

2025:KER:83596

Municipal Election"

2. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 1st respondent

Kerala State Election Commission, a statement dated 27.10.2025

has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel, opposing the

reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith

Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) documents.

3. On 31.10.2025, when the writ petition came up for

consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following

interim order:

"Read order dated 16.10.2025.

Even though a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the election in Ward No.32 of Kalamassery Municipality, in the light of the principle laid down in AKM Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 218]. But I make it clear that the election conducted in ward No.32 of Kalamassery Municipality will be subject to the result of this Writ Petition".

4. Challenging the above interim order dated 31.10.2025

of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-writ petitioners are

before this Court with the instant writ appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the

2025:KER:83596

learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Standing

Counsel for the State Election Commission and the learned

Standing Counsel for Kalamassery Municipality.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out a

judgment of this Court dated 03.11.2025 in W.A.No.2626 of 2025

and submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is also

similar to that of W.A.No.2626 of 2025. The learned counsel further

submitted that no purpose will be served to the appellants by the

impugned interim order granted by the learned Single Judge.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

the State Election Commission would submit about the scope of

interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in election matters.

8. In W.A.No.2626 of 2025 we have considered a similar

interim order as that of the instant case, under challenge in that

writ appeal. After considering the rival submissions we have

disposed of that writ appeal by the judgment dated 03.11.2025.

Paragraphs 6 to 8 of that judgment read thus:

"6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted an

2025:KER:83596

interim relief as sought for in the writ petition, i.e., staying the implementation of Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent District Collector, pending disposal of the writ petition. After noticing that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, the learned Single Judge declined interim relief placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in AKM Hassan Uzzman v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 218], which was a case in which no materials were before the High Court for entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216]. The learned counsel would submit that the interim order of the learned Single Judge that the election to be conducted in ward 14- Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat will be subject to the result of the writ petition will not serve any purpose, since no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is legally permissible on the election to be conducted in the ward in question, based on the notification issued by the State Election Commission.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission, after placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court referred to in the statement dated 29.10.2025 filed in the writ petition, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, would argue on the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in election matters and the mandate of Article 243E of the

2025:KER:83596

Constitution of India to ensure that the Panchayats are constituted before the expiry of its term of five years. We also heard arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Idukki District Panchayat for respondents 4 and 5.

8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has referred to various provisions in Ext.P2 guidelines dated 24.09.2025 issued by the State Election Commission for fixing reserved constituencies in Local Self Government Institutions. Since the scope of this writ appeal is limited to the challenge made against the interim order dated 31.10.2025 and the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.39600 of 2025, is pending before the learned Single Judge, we do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the above aspect in this writ appeal. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the interim order of the learned Single Judge that the election to be conducted in ward 14- Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat will be subject to the result of the writ petition will not serve any purpose, since no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is legally permissible on the election to be conducted in the ward in question, based on the notification issued by the State Election Commission".

9. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

2025:KER:83596

record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it

appropriate to dispose of this writ appeal in a similar line as that

of W.A.No.2626 of 2025.

In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside

the interim order dated 31.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in

W.P.(C)No.38248 of 2025, leaving open the legal and factual

contentions raised by both sides and without prejudice to their

right to raise appropriate contentions before the learned Single

Judge in the pending writ petition. It is made clear that, this Court

has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter pending