IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.UDAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, CPI(M), VENMONY LOCAL COMMITTEE, VENMONY, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (E.M)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VENMONY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENMONY, CHENGANNUR VIA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R3-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24294 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Secretary of a political party. He is aggrieved by the delimitation of wards of the Venmony Grama Panchayat. Altogether 15 wards are proposed by the draft notification, Exts.P1(A) and P1(B). Ext.P2(A) is the final order. According to the petitioner, when Ext.P2(B) was published, certain illegalities have been noticed. He has raised certain contentions by relying upon the voters list also. It is submitted that by Ext.P5, the petitioner filed fresh representation in the matter. 2. Herein, it is evident that going by Exts.P2(A) and P2(B) the delimitation of wards have been completed and final order has been passed. Obviously, Ext.P5 was submitted on 4.7.2010 only. Going by the draft proposal, the last date for filing objection was 11.1.2010 and going by Section 10(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, at the time of publication of the draft proposal, the Delimitation Commission will have to fix an outer time limit for filing objections and suggestions with respect to the proposals and any objection filed beyond the said date cannot be entertained. Herein, before the finalisation of the draft proposal, the petitioner had not raised any wpc 24294/2010 2 objection. Therefore, the objection presently filed cannot be held to be maintainable. 2. Apart from that, learned Standing Counsel for the Delimitation Commission submitted that in the light of Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India, there is a bar for this Court to consider the validity of Exts.P2(A) and P2(B) in a writ petition. The final notification has been published in the Kerala Gazette dated 30.6.2010. Therefore, no challenge can be made in the light of the bar provided as per Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/