IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18747 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MATHEW ABRAHAM, MARUTHICKAL HOUSE, UTHIMOODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITT DIST. 2. P.T.THOMAS, PULOOR HOUSE, UTHIMOODU P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONR, KERALA STATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA STATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SECRETARY, MYLAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 18747 of 2010-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The writ petition concerns the challenge made by the petitioners against the proceedings issued by the Delimitation Commission as per Ext.P7, delimiting the wards of Mylapra Grama Panchayat in Pathanamthitta District. 2. The District Collector, as per Ext.P2, invited objections against the proposal for delimitation pursuant to which, the petitioners submitted their objections as per Ext.P3. The objections have been raised in respect of ward Nos.2 and 3 of the Panchayat. It is pointed out that the objections have not been considered at all while finalising the draft. 3. Mainly it is contended that the voters whose houses (29 in number) which are situated at the western side of Muvattupuzha - Punaloor road, are excluded from the existing ward and they are included in ward No.2. It is pointed out that in the last election, the said houses were included in ward No.3 and there is no genuine reason to exclude them from the said ward. It is further pointed out that the inclusion of these houses in the ward No.2, known as 'Mekkozhur' ward, is highly illegal. The polling wpc 18747/2010 2 station in the said ward is situated 5 kms. away from the said houses and there is a big mountain having a rubber estate known as 'Ambatt' Rubber Estate separating it. It is also pointed out that the polling station of ward No.3 is the Marthoma Sunday School building which is situated only 1 km. from the said 29 houses and therefore they will not be having any difficulty to travel to the polling station. 4. The above matters have been highlighted in the grounds of the writ petition also. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent explaining that during the 2005 delimitation, the total number of wards was 12 and now it has been refixed as 13. It is pointed out that in the light of the creation of an additional ward, there will be change in the boundaries of the existing wards. As regards the 29 residential houses shown by the petitioners, it is mentioned that in the proposed ward No.2, there are 231 residential buildings having an estimated population of 773 and in ward No.3, there are 223 residential houses having an estimated population of 746. If the objections and suggestions of the petitioners are answered positively, the average residential buildings in ward No.2 will be reduced to 203 from that of 231 and the estimated population will come down to that of 680 which will result in a reduced population of 13.37% as wpc 18747/2010 3 against the average population. Similarly, if the 28 residential buildings in question are to be shifted from ward No.2 to ward No.3, the residential buildings will increase to 251 from that of 223 and the estimated population will raise to 841 thereby an increase of 7.13% as against the average population, which is against the norms fixed by the Delimitation Commission. It is further averred that the representations filed by the parties have been enquired through the Secretary of Mylapra Grama Panchayat. Finally, it is mentioned that the Commission has issued Ext.P7 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the objections and after strictly observing the guidelines issued by the Commission for the delimitation of constituencies. 6. The question is whether there is any illegality committed by the Commission in considering the objections and going by the averments in the statement, it is clear that the objections were duly considered. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission also made available for perusal the enquiry report submitted by the Junior Superintendent after verifying the objections raised by the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that the Commission had gone through the objections and had called for a report on the matter and only after satisfying that the objections cannot be accepted, Ext.P7 was issued. The reasons stated by the Commission for not accepting wpc 18747/2010 4 the objections, are very clear. As far as possible, the number of voters should be regulated more or less equally by the Commission in respect of each wards. 7. The process of delimitation is undertaken by the Commission in terms of the guidelines and there is no violation of the guidelines also in the present case. 8. What is projected by the petitioners is the difficulty which may be faced by the voters of the 29 houses at the time of polling. With regard to the location of polling station, etc. the same can be considered at a later stage by the respective authorities and the petitioners can also raise those questions at that point of time for a convenient polling station, especially since a new ward has come into existence. Therefore, the same is not a matter which may affect the process of delimitation. For all these reasons, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/