IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21900 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.P.SAJU, PRESIDENT, PANOOR BLOCK CONGRESS (I) COMMITTEE, KADAVATHOOR P.O.-670676. 2. V.NAZAR, S/O.MOIDHU, GENRAL SECRETARY, KOOTHUPARAMBA NIYOOJAKA MANDALAM, MUSLIM LEAGUE COMMITTEE, PERINGOTTUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 01 2. KERALA STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 01. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, 670 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER GENERAL, KANNUR, 670 001. 5. THE KOOTHUPARAMBA BLOCK PANCHAYATH KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 670 643. 6. THE THALASSERY BLOCK PANCHAYATH KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 670 001. W.P.(C) NO.21900/2010 *ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED. 7. PRESIDENT, KUNNOTHUPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. THUVAKKUNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.04/08/2010 IN IA.NO.10630/2010. R1 , R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATION ADDL. R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON 04/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21900/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETHC SHOWING THE DECLARED PANOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH. P3:- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETHC AS PROPOSED BY THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D1-3/2009/SDC DTD. 3.7.2010 . P5:- COPY OF THE GO(P) 139/2010 /LSGD DTD. 2.7.2010. R7(A):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 14.6.2010 . TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 21900 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the formation of a new Block Panchayat, viz. Panoor. Ext.P1 is the draft notification. Therein, the proposal was to form a new Block Panchayat based at “Peringalam”. Certain Village Panchayats from existing Koothuparamba and Thalassery Block Panchayats are sought to be included therein. The petitioners raised objection in the matter and put up certain other suggestions also with regard to the formation of the new Block Panchayat. Having failed to impress the Government on those objections and aggrieved by the final notification, this writ petition is filed. 2. In the final notification published on 2.7.2010, “Panoor” Block Panchayat has been formed, which includes seven Grama Panchayats, viz. Chokli, Kariyad, Peringalam, Panoor, Pannyannur, Mokeri and Kathiroor. Ext.P2 is a rough sketch of the said Block Panchayat and Ext.P3 is the rough sketch in support of the proposal made by the petitioner. 3. The petitioners' objections are the following: The New Mahi Panchayat even now is retained in Thalassery Block Panchayat and this has wpc 21900/2010 2 no geographic connection with Thalassery Block Panchayat. This Panchayat should have been brought into Panoor Block Panchayat. Thripangottur and Kunnathuparamba Panchayats are lying geographically adjacent to Panoor Panchayat, but they have been retained in Koothuparamba Block Panchayat. Similarly, Kathiroor, Kottayam and Panniyannur Panchayats which are lying adjacent to Thalassery Block Panchayat, ought to have been made a part of Thalassery Block Panchayat and instead, they have been included in Panoor and Koothuparamba Block Panchayats respectively. Vengadu, Ancharakandy and Mokeri Panchayats are lying adjacent to Koothuparamba Block Panchayat and the same ought to have been made a part of Koothuparamba Block Panchayat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri K. Anand submitted that the exercise done by the Government is beyond the scope of Sections 4(1) (b) and 4(2)(a)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). It is pointed out that even the amendment introduced by substituting the words “or Block Panchayat” in Section 4(2) of the Act is not helpful to delete the areas of Village Panchayats from the existing Block Panchayats. The point argued by Shri K. Anand is that in Section 4(2)(b) there is no specific empowerment to exclude the area of a village panchayat from the area of a wpc 21900/2010 3 block panchayat. The unamended provision is that the “Government may diminish the area of any Village Panchayat by excluding from such Panchayat area any village or group of villages.” Herein, the Government is excluding certain Village Panchayats from the existing Block Panchayats for which there is no provision at all. Therefore, it is submitted that the action is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. 5. The argument is, at first blush attractive, but on a deeper scrutiny of the various provisions reveals that the amendment enables the Government to exclude the Village Panchayats also from the areas of existing Block Panchayats. Herein, the definition of 'Village' in Article 243 (g) is as follows: “ (g) 'village' means a village specified by the Governor by public notification to be a village for the purposes of this Part and includes a group of villages so specified.” When we come to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, village and village panchayats are defined under Sections 2(xliv) 2(xlvi) as under: “2(xliv) 'Village' means a Village specified by the Governor under clause (g) of Article 243; 2(xlvi) 'Village Panchayat' means a Village Panchayat constituted for a village or for a group of villages under clause (a) of sub-section wpc 21900/2010 4 (1) of Section 4.” Section 4(1) of the Act states as follows: “4. Power of the Government to constitute and specify the name and headquarters of Panchayat-- (1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification.-- (a) a Village Panchayat for each village or for group of villages; (b) a Block Panchayat at intermediate level; and © a District Panchayat for each District Panchayat area and specify the names and headquarters of such panchayats.” Evidently, a village panchayat is constituted for each village or group of villages. Therefore, there will be one village or different villages in a village panchayat which is constituted by the effect of Section 4(1). Hence, the components of a village panchayat will be a village or group of villages and administratively for the purpose of the Act they will be known as a village panchayat as duly constituted in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and that of the Panchayat Raj Act. Sections 4(2)(a) and 4 (2)(b) after adding the words “or Block Panchayat” by the amended read thus: wpc 21900/2010 5 “4(2) The Government may, at the request of the Panchayat concerned, or after consultation with the Panchayat and after previous publication of the proposal by notification,-- (a) increase the area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat by including within such Panchayat area any village or group of villages; (b) diminish the area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat by excluding from such Panchayat area any village or group of villages.” The words “or Block Panchayat' was not there before the amendment and now it is added after the words “Village Panchayat”. For diminishing the area of a Block Panchayat, the Government can “exclude from such panchayat area any village or group of villages.” When there is a village panchayat for a village or group of villages, such exclusion will automatically result in exclusion of that village panchayat from the block panchayat. Therefore, even if the words “village panchayat” are not mentioned in the last limb of sub-sections 2(a) or 2(b), by way of any amendment, that is immaterial. Hence, the said argument is rejected. 6. Evidently, going by Section 4(2)(a), there should be consultation with the panchayats concerned. Herein, as regards the formation of the new block panchayat, going by the averments in the counter affidavit, the wpc 21900/2010 6 position has been explained in paragraphs 7 and 8. It is mentioned that Chokli, Kariyadu, Peringalom and New Mahi Grama Panchayats of Thalassery Block Panchayat and Panoor and Panniyannoor Grama Panchayats of Koothuparamba Block Panchayats are integrated to form a new Block Panchayat. The proposal was made in view of the fact that excessive number of constituent Grama Panchayats in many Block Panchayats of Kannur District, are creating administrative problems. The New Mahi Grama Panchayat and Thalassery Block Panchayat have vehemently opposed the proposal for inclusion of New Mahi Grama Panchayat in the proposed Peringalom Block Panchayat and they have also taken resolutions in this regard to retain New Mahi Grama Panchayat in Thalassery Block Panchayat itself, in view of the fact that the inclusion of New Mahi Grama Panchayat in the proposed Peringalom Block Panchayat will be geographically very inconvenient to the people of New Mahi Grama Panchayat. It is explained that it was on the basis of the views/opinions/objections raised during the time of hearing that the New Mahi Grama Panchayat was excluded from the proposed Peringalom Block Panchayat and the Government have acted only in accordance with the prayers of the people in that area and accordingly the action is sought to be wpc 21900/2010 7 justified. Thus, the New Mahi Panchayat is retained in Thalassery Block Panchayat itself. It is further explained in para 8 of the counter affidavit that Kathiroor and Panniyannur Grama Panchayats were included in the Panoor Block Panchayat as per the final notification, only after duly considering the resolutions passed by Kathiroor, Panniyannur, Chokli, Kariyadu and Mokeri Grama Panchayats and Thalassery Block Panchayat. Similarly, Kottayam Grama Panchayat was included in the Kuthuparamba Block Panchayat on the basis of the decision taken by the Local Self Government Institutions concerned. It is also explained that Kathiroor and Panniyannoor Grama Panchayats are adjacent to each other and a geographically contiguous unit on their integration with the other Grama Panchayats, viz. Chokli, Kariyadu, Peringalom, Panoor and Mokeri to form the new Block Panchayat, i.e. Panoor. Accordingly, it is pointed out that the Government have changed the proposal on the basis of the objections raised by the various village panchayats. With regard to Thripangottur and Kunnothparamba Grama Panchayats also, the action is sought to be justified. 7. Herein, it is evident that the Government acted upon the resolutions of the existing Block Panchayats and the Village Panchayats wpc 21900/2010 8 with regard to the formation of Panoor Block Panchayat. Of course, the petitioners' contention that the entire details with regard to the proposals were not communicated to the various panchayats and block panchayats, is significant. But even with regard to the proposals, the respective panchayats and block panchayats have responded and after considering their views, the final notification has been issued. Thus, the Government accepted their views while issuing the final notification. Therefore, New Mahi Panchayat which is included in Thalassery Block Panchayat is retained in the said Block Panchayat itself, in view of their preference. Similar is the case of various other block panchayats also. In that view of the matter, the situation herein is not identical to the batch of cases considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21166/2010 and other connected cases. Therefore, evidently the Government has more or less accepted the views of certain village panchayats. 8. True that the petitioners have mooted an alternate proposal. These proposals, unless accepted by the respective village panchayats and block panchayats, it cannot be said that they could have formulated into an action by the Government. All the individual Panchayats are not parties herein also. Herein, as already noticed, the Government has more or less accepted wpc 21900/2010 9 the will of the grama panchayats and block panchayats concerned. In that view of the matter, the initial proposal was varied and a final notification was issued. Thus, it cannot be said that it is arbitrary or illegal and without any application of mind. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/