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. 22180 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.N.SUJATHA, W/O.SURESH KRISHNA, AGED 43 YEARS, KURIKKOTTIL VEEDU,MALAKKARA P.O.,EDAYARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SUSHEELA GANGADHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS,W/O.GANGADHARAN, THANNIKUNNIL, MALAKKARA P.O.,EDAYARANMULA. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, STATION ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE PRESIDENT ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARANMUKLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-PIN689532. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON 17/08/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22180 of 2010-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT The writ petition concerns the complaint against the delimitation of wards of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat. The petitioners are residents of Ward No.3 of the said Panchayat. It is pointed out that in Ward No.3 there is a harijan colony, viz. Thannikunnel Harijan Settlement Colony which is inhabited by hundreds of families. 2. When the process of delimitation was initiated as per Ext.P1, out of the total number of harijan families, 40 have been separated from Ward No.3 and added to Ward No.17. Against the same, some objections were filed by the residents of the colony as per Exts.P2 and P3. Ext.P4 is the final order wherein the proposal was confirmed. It is pointed out that thereafter all the political parties have opposed it by organising meetings also. 3. The first respondent has filed a statement raising a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition, in the light of the bar contained in Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the notification has been published in the Gazette dated 30.6.2010 wpc 22180/2010 2 and therefore since the process of delimitation was completed, this writ petition cannot be maintained at all. With regard to the facts of the case also, an additional statement has been filed. It is mentioned in para 6 that one Smt. Bindu Suresh and 207 others filed objection against the draft proposal alleging that building Nos.487 to 540 of existing Ward No.3 are included in Ward No.17 and requested to retain the same in Ward No.3 itself. This was enquired through the Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office wherein it is pointed out that earlier the members of the colony were in the same ward. It is further pointed out that in the proposed Ward No.3, there are 462 residential buildings and the assessed population is 1653. In Ward No.17 the total residential buildings are 442 and the assessed population is 1581. If the proposal of the petitioner is allowed, there will be huge reduction of residential buildings and the population in the proposed ward No.17. It is pointed out that as the same will be against the provisions of Section 10 of th Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Delimitation Commission did not concede to the request for retaining the 54 residential buildings in Ward No.3. It is also submitted that there was no political pressure also. 4. Going by the report of the Deputy Tahsildar also, the division of 54 families have been effected based on the natural boundaries available. The delimitation process is being done so as to provide houses in terms of wpc 22180/2010 3 the average population fixed. Therefore, the distribution of houses are being done in terms of the natural boundaries also. 5. The grievance raised by the petitioner is mainly that if the colony is divided between two wards, then they may not get various benefits. It is not explained as to how they will be denied the various benefits as a result of the delimitation alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain members of the Scheduled Caste will now be included in another village. In fact, none of these questions can be considered by the Delimitation Commission, evidently. As far as the Commission is concerned, they are only concerned with the delimitation of wards in terms of the natural boundaries to provide sufficient number of houses in each wards to have a proper distribution of population also. Such complaints can be agitated before the competent authorities and the Government. 6. As contended by the Delimitation Commission, since there is a bar under Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India, to consider the above aspects, the writ petition is not maintainable. The various decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, viz. Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others (AIR 1967 SC 669), State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra wpc 22180/2010 4 Samiti (AIR 1995 SC 1512) and Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of UP {(1996) 6 SCC 303} are applicable here. It has been held in similar cases that judicial review is not permissible over orders of delimitation. Therefore, no relief can be granted in the writ petition against the delimitation of wards. 7. After the elections are over, the petitioners can raise their grievances with regard to the denial of the benefits, if any, merely because they have been arrayed in different wards and if such representations are filed, the same will be considered by the Government or the Panchayat Committee itself. Leaving open the right of the petitioners to pursue those remedies, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/