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. 18219 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.ABBAS ALI, S/O. ALIKUTTY, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAKUNNU, P.O.PURUR, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TRIVANDRUM-695032. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. PORUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY SECRETARY PORUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC, FOR R1 & R2 RE BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA 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. 18219 of 2010-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings Ext.P4, whereby the Delimitation Commission has finalised the proposal for delimitation of Porur Grama Panchayat. He is convener of United Democratic Front of the said Panchayat. During the last election there were 16 wards and as per the present proposal, there will be 17 wards. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that even though objections were given as per Ext.P2 showing various anomalies in the draft proposal, those objections were not considered. It is pointed out that a hearing was conducted on 15.3.2010 at the Malappuram Collectorate, on Ext.P2 and similar other objections, but the petitioner was given only less than 2 minutes for substantiating his objections. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even going by the boundaries shown in Ext.P1, it can be seen that glaring mistakes have occurred, e.g. the southern boundary of Ward No.2 will not tally with the northern boundary of Ward No.16. It is therefore submitted that artificial wpc 18219/2010 2 boundaries have been fixed which have no connection with the ground reality. 4. On behalf of the Commission, a statement has been filed. It is pointed out that the petitioner has suggested changes in the draft delimitation proposal in respect of all the 17 wards of the Panchayat. His objection was enquired through the Village Officer and on the basis of the enquiry report and the recommendations furnished by the District Collector, Malappuram, he was invited for a hearing on 15.3.2010. It is further pointed out that on the basis of the personal hearing, the report of the Village Officer and the recommendations of the District Collector, Ext.P4 instructions were issued to the Secretary of the Panchayat to effect changes in the draft delimitation proposal. Final order delimiting the constituencies of the Panchayat is yet to be passed. Certain suggestions of the petitioner have been recommended by the Enquiry Officer and other suggestions were found not feasible as per the guidelines for delimitation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually, objections have been submitted by other persons also, but a realistic approach has not been made by the Commission and none of the objections have been properly considered. It is pointed out that the Village Officer's report ought to have been considered before Ext.P4 was issued. wpc 18219/2010 3 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has placed for perusal the report of the Village Officer on the objections submitted by the petitioner. The report of the Village Officer also shows that some suggestions of the petitioner have been considered. 7. What is involved is the process of delimitation. Various objections may be there from different parties and the Commission is expected to finalise the draft after considering various objections. The power of the Commission in such matters is delineated by various decisions of this Court and Apex Court. In {(2009) 5 SCC 404} in para 26, their Lordships held thus: “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.” wpc 18219/2010 4 8. This is not a case where the objections were not considered at all. In fact, the objections were verified through the Village Officer and going by the averments in the statement, those objections have been considered also. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Commission has acted arbitrarily in the matter before issuing Ext.P4. Modifications to be made have been clearly specified in Ext.P4. The final notification is yet to be issued also. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to consider the objections afresh in the light of the fact that the proceedings Ext.P4 does not reflect the consideration of all the objections raised by the petitioner. I am afraid, such a course cannot be adhered to, as the same will result in redoing the entire thing and delaying the process of delimitation. The Commission has taken an exercise after considering various reports and after verifying the objections submitted by the parties. On an appraisal of the factual aspects they have passed Ext.P4. The report submitted by the Village Officer also was considered. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Village Officer's report has not been considered by the Commission, going by the statement filed on behalf of the Commission, it is made clear that the said report, particularly on the objections made by the petitioner, was considered. wpc 18219/2010 5 10. In that view of the matter, there is nothing for this Court to interfere at this stage. One of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that many of the boundaries shown are not natural boundaries and are not identified also. If any mistake is there, it is open for the authorities concerned or by the persons interested, to point out the same by recourse to Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/