IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19087 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADV. T.MOHAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, PADIPPURAYIL PAVITHRAM, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695601. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE DE LIMITATION COMMISSION, TC 14/764(4), OBSERVATORY LINE MUSEUM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 009. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR-690 540. 6. MYNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 519. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R2 SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R3 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.19087/2010-I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the proceedings issued by the Delimitation Commission, after the settling of objections with regard to the delimitation of Mynagappally Grama Panchayat, which has been produced as Ext.P6. The writ petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P7 representation and having failed to get any reply in the matter, this writ petition has been filed. 2. The draft proposals were published by the Delimitation Commission as per Ext.P2. The total number of Constituencies are 22. The objection raised by the petitioner has been produced as Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the objection submitted by the Local Committee of the C.P.I(M), Mynagappally. 3. The main objections were regarding Ward Nos.VI, XIII and XVI. It is further pointed out that the geographical boundaries of Ward No.XVI have been changed in an unscientific manner. There is a water logged area named Vettikkadu Ela, which is now the southern boundary of the present ward. In the new proposal, portions on the other side Vettikkadu Ela have also been included in Ward No.XVI. W.P.(C). No.19087/2010 -:2:- It is pointed out that the Enquiry Officer who considered the objections, filed a report recommending modifications and accepting the objections raised by the petitioners and others. But overruling the same Ext.P6 order has been passed by the Commission without any modification. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Commission wanted to reject the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner and other objectors ought to have been heard further. It is pointed out that the report which found that the objections are genuine ought not have been discarded by the Commission. It is pointed out that the unscientific way in which the delimitation was undertaken, especially, in Ward No.XVI still remains and, therefore the proceedings are a mockery. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has filed a statement. It is mentioned in the statement that the total population in the Panchayat as per 2001 census is 39336, the total number of residential buildings is 10688, and the average population will be 1788 with average 486 residential buildings in each ward. Most of the complaints were against the proposed ward Nos.VI, XIII and XVI. Mention is made about the report of the Enquiry Officer in paragraph (7) of the statement. It is pointed W.P.(C). No.19087/2010 -:3:- out in paragraph (8) that objections and the enquiry report were considered by the Delimitation Commission. It was felt by the Commission that though the Enquiry Officer recommended the inclusion and exclusion of houses from one ward to another, there was no mention about the consequent changes of the boundaries of the wards aforesaid, namely Ward Nos.VI, XIII and XVI. Accordingly, the Commission was constrained to summon the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat as well as the Enquiry Officer to ascertain the exact position and consequential changes of the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer. On 31/05/2010, the Secretary of the Panchayat and the fifth respondent-Enquiry Officer appeared before the Commission and jointly filed a statement to the effect that if the proposed amendments suggested by the fifth respondent-Enquiry Officer are implemented, the number of residential buildings seen in proposed Ward No.XVII will decrease to 212 from that of 437 and that the estimated population will diminish to 782 from that of 1788 and as a result, there will be reduction of 60% of the average population Ward No.XVII. The Commission after examining the joint statement has passed Ext.P6 order directing the Secretary not to effect any change in the draft proposal. It is therefore, submitted that there is W.P.(C). No.19087/2010 -:4:- no arbitrary rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the fact that natural boundaries of Ward No.XVI have not been changed, even after it is found to be not proper by the Enquiry Officer, is no longer under dispute. Real situation has not been properly understood by the Delimitation Commission and they should have accepted the enquiry report submitted by the fifth respondent in toto. It is further pointed out that at any rate before passing Ext.P6, a further hearing ought to have been held in the matter. 7. The Commission will have to delimit the Wards in an equitable manner, based on the average population and number of houses to be included going by Section 10(1)(a) proviso of the Act. It is clear from the statement filed on behalf of the Commission that even after the enquiry report was submitted, the Secretary and the Enquiry Officer were summoned and their views were taken in the matter. If the recommendation is implemented, there will be considerable decrease in the number of houses and voters in Ward No.XVII. It is therefore clear that the Commission has considered the entire aspects in detail. In that view W.P.(C). No.19087/2010 -:5:- of the matter, it cannot be said that the Commission's decision is arbitrary or illegal in any sense or in violation of the statutory provisions. 8. It is not as if every proposal made by the parties concerned requires a fresh draft to be prepared by the Commission with a further opportunity to submit objections. What is required under Section 10(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is to publish a draft and conduct a hearing on the suggestions and objections. The said process was completed by the Commission in terms of the statutory prescriptions. 9. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the proceedings of the Commission. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms