IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18791 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.M.SHASTHRA SHARMAN, S/O.K.S.BHATTATHIRIPPAD, KUNNATHUMANA, KOLALAMBU P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.V.JAYAPRAKASH, KORAMANGALATHU VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLALAMBU P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, OBSERVATORY LANE, MUSEUM P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 5. EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 596. 6. SECRETARY, EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 596. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC, FOR R2 and R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.18791/2010-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein, who are residents of Ward No.XII of Edappal Grama Panchayat, are aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Delimination Commission 2. Mainly it is contended that the objections raised by the petitioners in Exts.P2 and P3, have not been specifically considered. 3. The issue is with regard to the draft proposal of delimitation of the Wards in Edappal Grama Panchayat. Going by Ext.P1 proposal, in Ward No.XIII, house Nos.1 to 485 of the existing Ward No.XII plus house Nos.36 to 74 of Ward No.XIII are proposed to be included. According to the petitioners, the inclusion of 39 families from Ward No.XIII cannot be justified and, it is politically motivated. It is further pointed out that if additions have to be made, that can be from house Nos.1 to 21 in Ward No.XIII. 4. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the Delimitation Commission dated 30/04/2010 wherein no change have been made in the proposal, except that the name of the Ward No.XIII is changed as “Pulikkad” instead of “Koloth”. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no scientific method by which the Commission W.P.(C). No.18791/2010 -:2:- has considered the objections. It is pointed out that the inclusion of 39 families has no real merit, in that the same is carved out from the middle of the said Ward. 6. Going by the statement filed by the Commission, it is averred that the method adopted is in terms of the norms and guidelines issued by the Commission, especially, taking into account the natural boundaries, average population and convenience for setting up of polling stations. It is pointed out that more or less equal distribution of Wards have been attempted by the Commission. The objections raised by the petitioners were enquired through the Village Officer, Edappal and on the basis of the enquiry report and the remarks thereon of the District Collector, the petitioners and others were personally heard by the Delimitation Commission on 16/03/2010. 7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that a further hearing should be given in the matter, I am not satisfied that the exercises done by the Commission are not in tune with the scheme of the Act. What is contemplated is the consideration of suggestions and objections and, evidently, the objections were enquired through the Village Officer also. It is thereafter the Commission has passed Ext.P4. W.P.(C). No.18791/2010 -:3:- Therefore, it is not a case where the objections were not considered at all. The requirement of passing a considered order cannot be insisted in the matter of delimitation of wards. What is expected is only a consideration of the various matters in terms of the various factors which are specified in the guidelines issued by the Commission itself. 8. Therefore, as there is no glaring defect in the proceedings, I am not satisfied that the proceedings require interference by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE