IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21960 of 2010(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. UPAASNA NAGAR RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, UPAASNA NAGAR, PIRAYARI P.O., PIN-678019, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY K.MOHANAN, ERANGAD HOUSE, UPAASNA NAGAR, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD. 2. P.RAJAN, PATRON, UPAASNA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, "JITHASRAM", UPAASNA NAGAR, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, L.M.S.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE DE-LIMITATION COMMISSION AND THE JOINT DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT), DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. WP(C).No. 21960/2010 4. THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIRAYIRI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIRAYIRI P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 019. BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC FOR R1 & R2. SRI.K. RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21960 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is an association of the residents of Upaasna Nagar in the 4th respondent Pirayiri Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary and the 2nd petitioner is the Patron of the said association. The residences in Upaasna Nagar spread over of an area of approximately 1 sq.km in Ward Nos.5, 6, 10 and 11 of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayath. 2. The 2nd petitioner filed a representation as per Exhibit P1 against the proposal for delimitation of wards. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent conducted a hearing over the matter and thereafter as no further hearing was done, the 2nd petitioner filed another representation as per Exhibit P3. The petitioners have pursued the matter under the Right to Information Act also. It is pointed out that without adjudicating their grievances, delimitation of wards has been completed to their detriment. W.P.(C) No.21960/2010 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission. It is pointed out that since the entire Upaasna Nagar is divided into 4, they are not getting proper attention from the Panchayath and the concerned members in the matter of development of the area. Their demand is to maintain the entire area covered by the Upaasna Nagar into one ward so that prudent action can be taken on all burning issues concerning the residents. 4. Evidently, the delimitation of wards goes by the criteria prescribed by the Delimitation Commission in the guidelines. Normally, natural boundaries are taken after fixing the average population to be included in respect of each wards etc. Therefore, the situation like the present one cannot be avoided, and the entire area covered by the Upaasna Nagar cannot normally find a place in one ward as demanded by the petitioner. 5. Evidently, there will not be any violation of the statutory provisions or the guidelines if the Upaasna Nagar is divided into different areas for the purpose of delimitation. Of course, the grievance raised by the petitioners will be against the attitude of W.P.(C) No.21960/2010 3 the members of the Panchayath at the time when development works are undertaken. But this will have to be addressed by other forums/authorities. 6. As far as the Commission is concerned, they can only go by the prescriptions of the statute available under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and the guidelines issued by the Commission itself. Unlike other statutory functionaries adjudicating various disputes, the respective objections submitted before the Delimitation Commission may not result in a positive or negative order in the sense of an adjudication of disputes also. What is being done is only delimitation of wards. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the matter. This writ petition is dismissed. But this will not prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to pursue their future grievances about other issues once the election is over and new Panchayath Committee is elected. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp