IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29480 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.R. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN VAIDYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, ARUNODHAYAM, NATHASSERY, S.H. MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM-686006. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF CENSUS OPERATIONS(KERALA DIRECTORATE OF CENSUS OPERATIONS, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CGO COMPLEX, POONKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695522. 2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIC TOWERS, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, KOTTAYAM-686001. ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R2&R3 ASG SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29480 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.12.04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY O THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.12.05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.1.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.3.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.3.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE CENSUS OF VIJAYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DATED 19.5.05 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.3.05 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.5.05 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).15896/05 EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.7.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).29480/2006 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is a resident of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat in Kottayam district. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction to the respondents to treat Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat as a rural area. 2. According to the petitioner, if Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat is classified as a rural area, consumers of respondents 2 and 3 will be eligible for several concessional benefits. He made representations and by Ext.P4, petitioner was informed that for treating a village as urban or rural, a three fold criteria is to be satisfied. It is stated that the said three fold criteria consists of (i). A minimum population of 5,000 is required. (ii). A Density of population of at least 400 per Sq.KMs (1,000 Per Sq.Mile) is required. (iii). At least 75% of male working population engaged in non agricultural pursuits. It is stated that criteria Nos.1 and 2 are satisfied but the third criteria is not satisfied in the case of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat. In spite of the same, Vijayapuram Grama W.P.(C).29480/06 2 Panchayat has still been treated as urban area. 3. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).15896/2005 for a direction to the respondents to treat the Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat as a rural area. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing the 1st respondent therein to consider the matter. The matter was considered and Ext.P11 order has been issued, the relevant portion of which reads as follows. “Vijayapuram revenue village, as a basic unit for testing the urban criteria, did not satisfy all the three conditions laid down in the three-fold- urban criteria and hence could not be treated as a Census Town (Urban) in 2001 Census. However, Vijayapuram village has fulfilled the population as well as density criteria and failed to satisfy only the limit prescribed for the percentage of male workers in non agricultural pursuits. As such it could not be treated as an independent urban unit but deserves to be clubbed with the town as a continuous urban spread. Vijayapuram revenue village is contiguous to Kottayam Municipality which is a statutory town. This village also inter depends upon Kottayam Municipality which is a statutory W.P.(C).29480/06 3 town. This village also inter depends upon Kottayam town and has all the infrastructural facilities and urban characteristics as that of a town and hence it is treated as an urban appendage (outgrowth) of Kottayam Municipality. In 1991 Census also, Vijayapuram revenue village was treated as an out-growth of Kottayam Municipality and on the same footing it is treated as an out-growth in 2001 Census.” 4. A reading of this order indicates that it was applying uniform standards which are being applied throughout the country that Vijayapuram has been treated as an urban area. The order reflects a proxy decision taken by the respondents adverting to relevant facts. Petitioner can challenge that classification only if any arbitrariness or mala fide is made out. In this case having regard to the contents of Ext.P11, I do not find any arbitrariness in the exercise of power by the 1st respondent. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs