IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 779 of 2010(J) --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/NO PARTY ----------------------------------------- P.P.ABDU SAMAD, S/O. MOHAMMED, PANDARAPETTY HOUSE, KUTTOOR NORTH, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676305. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, PATTASSERY HOUSE, KAKKADAMPURAM, A.R. NAGAR.PO. MALAPPURAM-676305. 2. ASLAM.K.P KOOLIPPULAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR NORTH.P.O., MALAPPURAM. 3. K.P.M. ANEES (ADVOCATE), KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR NORTH.P.O., MALAPPURAM. 4. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, T.C. 14/764 (4), OBSERVATORY LINE, MUSEUM.PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 8. THE SECRETARY, VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. 9. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1-3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION A/W R.P.780/2010 ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON 20/8/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.Nos.779/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 21098/2010 & 780/2010 in W.P.(C) No.18801/2010 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The petitioner in both the review petitions is same and he is not a party in the writ petitions. The matter relates to the delimitation of wards in Vengara Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel appearing for other respondents. 3. This Court, as per the judgment, quashed Exts.P9 and P11 proceedings of the Delimitation Commission. According to the review petitioner, they have been passed properly by the Delimitation Commission. The Delimitation Commission, after considering varius objections and suggestions, had passed a final order as per Ext.P8 holding the view that building Nos.440 to 514 which are included in Ward No.1 are to be included in Ward No.2 and geographical boundary may accordingly varied. This was ordered after due enquiry through the District Collector and after hearing the objectors on 15.3.2010. The order is dated 30.4.2010. RP Nos.779 & 780 0f 2010 2 Nearly after two months, by a single line order, Ext.P9 dated 9.6.2010, without stating any reasons, Ext.P8 order was cancelled which was under challenge in the writ petitions. After filing of the writ petitions, again the Delimitation Commission passed a fresh order, Ext.P11, reiterating the same. 4. This Court took the view that the Delimitation Commission received fresh objections far beyond the period prescribed for acceptance of objections, for interfering with Ext.P8 order which is illegal and impermissible. As the last date for submission of objections have not been extended by the Commission, it was held that para 4 of the guidelines issued by the Commission really stands in the way of the Commission accepting the objection after the last date fixed for acceptance of the same. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Shri T. Krishnanunni submitted that Ext.P8 was varied and Ext.P9 order was issued on the basis of the objections submitted by the review petitioner. He is aggrieved only when Ext.P8 order was passed. Therefore, he can raise his objections only thereafter. It is therefore contended that there is an apparent RP Nos.779 & 780 0f 2010 3 error in the view taken by this Court. 6. Evidently, the scheme under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the guidelines by the Delimitation Commission, have been considered by this Court in detail. The procedure for delimitation envisages inviting objections and the last date fixed herein was 11.1.2010. The acceptance of an objection afresh, after Ext.P8 final order was passed, goes against the scheme of Section 10 of the Act and the guidelines issued. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that only after the issuance of Ext.P8 alone, the review petitioner had any objection in the matter and with regard to the draft proposal, he was not aggrieved. 6. The process of delimitation envisages publication of draft proposal, inviting objections/suggestions and a hearing on those objections. The parties who wish to sustain the draft proposal will have to submit their statements, if any, in the matter and participate in the hearing also. They cannot wait till final orders are passed by the Commission to raise it later. In that view of the matter, the argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be sustained. The same goes against the scheme of the RP Nos.779 & 780 0f 2010 4 delimitation process itself. Apart from that, I am not satisfied that there is any apparent error in the judgment. Therefore, the review petitions are not entertainable and hence dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/