IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21450 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.R.SUGUNAN, THATTAMPARAMBU HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 018. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTYAM- 686 001. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON 16/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.21450/2010-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Herein, we are concerned with the delimitation of wards of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat. The petitioner is a social activist, an active worker of the Bharatheeya Janata Party and a resident of Ward No.13(12) of the said Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the proposal whereby there will be enhancement of number of constituencies from 18 to 19. Ward No.19 is the new ward which was created. It affected the geographical boundaries of old ward Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 18. The petitioner has given as a table in paragraph (3) the number of voters of the old wards and the new wards. 2. Ext.P2 is the objection filed by the petitioner. According to him, there was a hearing on 12/05/2010 and, a further representation was submitted as per Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the final notification delimiting the constituency. Mainly it is contended that the boundaries of the wards need not have been altered and what was requested is only alteration of ward Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 18 alone for forming Ward No.19. It is also pointed out that the population shown in respect of certain wards exceeds the average prescribed as per the guidelines also. W.P.(C). No.21450/2010 -:2:- 3. The first respondent has filed a statement as well as an additional statement. In the statement filed, a preliminary objection is taken on the plea that judicial review is barred under Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India. In the additional statement, detailed reasons have been shown as to why the objections of the petitioners were rejected. 4. Going by the additional statement it is evident that the objections raised by the petitioner were subjected to an enquiry and a true copy of the enquiry report is produced as Annxure-B. Therefore, it is clear that the objections were referred to the enquiry officer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.Nagaresh submitted that the average population has breached at least in respect of two wards, namely, Ward Nos.16 and 17. 6. It is explained in the additional statement that for the purpose of delimitation of Local Self Government Institutions certain guidelines have been prescribed by the Commission. In the guidelines, among other things, it was instructed that while delimiting the constituencies of Local Self Government Institutions, the population in a constituency should as far as possible be equal to that in other constituencies taking into account the 2001 census W.P.(C). No.21450/2010 -:3:- figures. In cases where the delimitation with reference to this norm was not possible, a variation upto 10% from the upper/lower limit from the average population of the Local Self Government Institutions was allowed in the case of Grama Panchayats also. 7. The process of delimitation involves fixing natural boundaries. Therefore, the prime concern will be to fix natural boundaries and then to delimit the wards. In such circumstances, there can be variation of population in respect of different wards. Further, going by the provisions of the Act, delimitation has to be based on population but it need not be that in all the wards the population should remain the same. Of course, variations may be there and even if the variation is above 10%, it cannot be said that the delimitation as such has to be upset. The prime concern being fixing of natural boundaries, such variation may find a place when the final order is passed. That will not make the final order illegal. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a hearing proposed on 06/04/2010 was not held. The same is denied by the Commission in their statement. Herein, going by the facts revealed in the pleadings, the objection raised by the petitioner was properly enquired into. Therefore, as the W.P.(C). No.21450/2010 -:4:- order has been passed after considering his objections also, absence of personal hearing at all will not vitiate the order. For all these reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms