IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20445 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.I.NASSER, SECRETARY, VADAKARA, TOWN MUSLIM LEAGUE COMMITTEE, P.C.SMARAKA SOUDHAM, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673103. BY ADVS. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1 2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, (FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, (FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1 4. THE DISTRICT COLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAMBA, CALICUT - 5 5. THE BADAGARA MUNICIPALITY, (P.O.) BADAGARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – 673 103 R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATION SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON 11/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20445 of 2010- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The delimitation of Vadakara Municipality is under challenge herein. The petitioner is a voter of the said Municipality. Ext.P3 is the proposal against which the petitioner filed a detailed objection as per Ext.P5. Finally, the wards were delimited as per Ext.P6 proceedings. 2. The objections raised by the petitioner are mainly that Vadakara Municipality is divided into two areas by the rail line passing through, as east and west. The western area of the Municipality is having more density of population than the eastern area. The residents of western area are mainly people engaged in fishing, coir manufacturing, etc. The western portion of the Municipality used to have more than 40% of the total wards. While the total number of wards were 32, the western portion consisted of 12 wards and when it was 44 in the year 2005, the western portion consisted of 16 wards and now out of 47 wards, only 13 wards have been provided in the western part and actually 17 wards should have been there, going by the number of voters. It is pointed out that the guidelines issued by the State Delimitation Commission have been violated and it is done wpc 20445/2010 2 only at the instance of the ruling parties of the Municipality. The petitioner has produced certain additional documents as Ext.P7 along with I.A. No.9863/2010. It is pointed out that in Ward Nos.40, 44, 46 and 47 the number of voters will be more than the average population fixed for delimitation of wards and two different booths have been provided therein also. These four wards actually contain voters for eight wards. Therefore, justification is sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 17 wards should have been there in the western part. 3. The Delimitation Commission has filed a detailed statement. It is explained that for delimitation of wards the population figure as per the 2001 census are taken. The Government fixed the total number of wards as 47 and the total population was 75847/- with 16812 residential buildings. The average population is 1614 and average number of residential buildings in each ward is 358. Some of the points raised by the petitioner with regard to the omission of residential buildings, were considered and they were included in appropriate wards. It is pointed out that the ward division cannot be done based on the area that is divided between the railway line and the criteria that can be adopted is governed by Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is pointed out that the factors pointed out by the wpc 20445/2010 3 petitioner are not relevant criteria for delimitation. A chart showing the delimitation of 47 wards have been given and it is pointed out that going by the same, it is evident that the total number of wards were delimited based on population alone. 4. Shri C. Vathsalan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is a clear case of 'gerrymandering'. It is submitted that the population figures as per 2001 census alone was taken by the Commission and the increase in the population as well as the number of voters have not been considered. It is pointed out that going by Ext.P7, in Ward No.40, there will be 1711 voters; in Ward No.44, there will be 1513 voters; in Ward No.46 there will be 1975 voters and in Ward No.47, there will be 1885 voters. There are two polling booths each therein. It is pointed out that these aspects have been pointed out in Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 voters list clearly supports the plea of the petitioner. 5. The number of seats of Councillors are clearly fixed by the Government in the light of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. The Delimitation Commission is not having any role therein. Going by sub- section (1) of Section 6, in accordance with the criteria specified in sub- section (3), the Government will have to notify the total number of seats of wpc 20445/2010 4 the Councillors to be filled up by direct election in a Town Panchayat, Municipality and Municipal Corporation considering the population of the area of the Municipality concerned. The population figures are taken evidently on the basis of 2001 census. There is no provision under Section 6 also to overlook the population census of the year 2001 or to consider the number of voters as on today for fixing the wards. Therefore, the total population divided by the number of houses, gave 47 as the total number of wards herein. The average population figure as 1614 and the average number of residential buildings as 358 have been accordingly fixed. 6. The statement filed by the Commission shows that the average population is 1614. In Ward No.40, the population is 1719, in Ward No.41, it is 1683, in Ward No.42 it is 1453, in Ward No.43 it is 1466, in Ward No.44 it is 1480, in Ward No.45 it is 1466, in Ward No.46 it is 1714 and in Ward No.47 it is 1471. True that the number of voters as shown now has increased. But there is no enabling provision for the Government or to the Commission to consider the number of voters as at present for the purpose of fixing the number of wards and for effecting delimitation of wards. Going by sub-section (2) of Section 6, the Government will have to consider the relevant data, according to each census and thereafter the wpc 20445/2010 5 total number of seats will have to be found out subject to the criteria specified in sub-section (3). Evidently, therefore, it cannot be said that the Government or the Commission has acted illegally or in violation of Sections 6 and 69 of the Act. The population figures of 2001 census alone could have been adopted by the respective authorities. 7. The practice alleged to have been followed, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be relevant for the purpose of delimitation of wards. If at all there was such a practice to provide 40% of the wards in the geographical area forming part of western area beyond the railway line, the same cannot be legally enforced, as it entirely depends upon the the average population and average number of residential houses also. 8. Therefore, it is not as if any illegality has been committed by the Commission in arriving at the average population, average number of houses and they could not have changed the total number of wards fixed by the Government also based on the voters list now made available. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. There is no illegality committed by the Commission in delimiting the wards in question. Ext.P6 shows that certain objections have been considered by wpc 20445/2010 6 the Commission. Therefore, the Delimitation Commission cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or illegally. The aspects pointed out by the petitioner could not have been considered by the Commission, in the absence of any statutory provisions. The writ petition is hence dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/