IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18524 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.K.BALAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ANDIPANICKER, RESIDING AT 'THANAL', SECRETARY, C.P.I.(M) VELOM LOCAL COMMITTEE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN (STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER), STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 6. VELOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. HAFSATH, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER (CDPO), KUNNUMMAL BLOCK, ICDS OFFICE, KUTTIADY P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATION COMMISSION FOR R1 & 2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE FOR R3 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 18524 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the resident of Velom Grama Panchayat. The matter concerns the challenge against the delimitation process of the Panchayat undertaken by the State Delimitation Commission. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the guidelines for delimitation. 2. The existing number of Wards in the Panchayat was 16. The number of wards was refixed as 17 going by the draft proposal Exhibit P2. It is submitted that various persons including the petitioner had filed objections to the same. There was a hearing in the objections also on 10.3.2010. Later, the Commission had directed the 6th respondent to amend the draft proposal with the changes mentioned in the order itself, as per Exhibit P3. The petitioner thereafter submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the District collector. It is the case of the petitioner that the draft proposal Exhibit P2 will show that there was 6074 houses in the entire 17 Wards and going by Exhibit P5 revised draft there are only 5953 houses which makes a W.P.(C)No.18524/10 -2- difference of 121 houses which are not included anywhere. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for various reliefs. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Delimitation Commission has filed a statement incorporating the following facts. 4. It is pointed out that the draft delimitation proposal was published on 21.12.2009 calling for objections and last date for submitting objections and suggestions was on 11.1.2010. 31 objections were received as against the draft delimitation proposal and on 10.3.2010 an opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the members. Further sittings were held on 26.4.2010 and 30.4.2010 and the objections were examined. Ultimately by Exhibit P3 the Commission directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to modify the draft proposal in accordance with the directions in Exhibit P3. It is pointed out that the petitioner had filed an objection to the proposal which is marked as Annexure A. The objection was confined to the reserved wards for women and scheduled castes and no other objections regarding any variation in population or gerrymandering of wards W.P.(C)No.18524/10 -3- was raised by the petitioner. Even he did not turn up for the hearing conducted on 10.3.2010 and Annexure B copy of the attendance sheet has been produced in support of the plea. 5. As regards the main objection raised by the petitioner that 121 houses have been omitted, it has been categorically stated in paragraph 9 that as per the draft proposal there are 6074 houses in the entire 17 wards and even after the delimitation process of the Panchayat, the total number of residential buildings has been shown as 6074. Therefore, it is a case where the Commission has denied the case of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a calculation is made on the total number of houses contained in Exhibit P2, the figure will be 5953. 7. It cannot be said that the Commission is obliged to hear parties at different stages and even in respect of the revised draft it is not obligatory to invite objections again. This legal position is clear from the decision of the Apex Court in Association of Resident of MHOW(Rom) and another v. The Delimitation Commission of India (2009 (5) SCC 404). Paragraph 26 deals with the legal position also, which reads as W.P.(C)No.18524/10 -4- follows: 26. The proposals cannot emanate from any interested person. The distinction between the Commission's proposals and the objections and suggestions in response to such proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal by the Commission. The Commission is not under any legal or constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. Since the exercise of the delimitation is not with reference to any particular constituency, the suggestions or objections, as the case may be, in respect of one constituency may have their impact at least on one or more of the adjoining constituencies.” 8. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that the Exhibit P4 objection ought to have been considered again cannot be supported. Herein, even going by the objections now raised by the petitioner, what is involved at the most is only a rectification of a mistake, if any, for which the petitioner can apply under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In the W.P.(C)No.18524/10 -5- light of the facts pointed out in the statement that there is no difference in the total number of house, this Court will have to accept the proceedings issued by the Delimitation Commissioner as correct. Therefore, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to file a representation under Section 11 of the Act, this Writ Petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn