IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20041 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.J.LENIN, S/O.JOHN NELLICKAL HOUSE, THURAVOOR PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 683 586. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OBSERVATORY LANE, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM 695 001 2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANATHAPURAM 695 001 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 4. SECRETARY THURAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THURAVOOR PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683 586. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC, FOR R1 & R2 SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, G.P. FOR RE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON 9.7.2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20041 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The challenge is against the delimitation of wards of Thuravoor Grama Panchayat. At present the number of wards is 13 and Ext.P1 is the true copy of guidelines for delimitation. Ext.P6 is the draft proposal whereby the number of wards has been refixed as 14. Objections were called for and the same was filed by the petitioner also. The objections have been rejected by Ext.P9, whereby the draft proposal has been confirmed. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Mainly it is pointed out that no enquiry was conducted and no reasons have been pointed out to reject the objections and that the map used for the preparation of the draft delimitation is not the actual one. It is further pointed out that the delimitation is made not on clock-wise starting from north west as contemplated in Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission. A new ward, viz. Ward No.XIV has been formed in the middle of the Grama Panchayat junction by cutting and crossing the main roads and geographical signs. 3. The first respondent has filed a statement as directed by this Court. wpc 20041/2010 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the division of wards is not on a clock-wise direction which is evident from the map itself. It is pointed out that Ward No.XI should naturally be Ward No.I, if the delimitation is done properly, as the same is north western ward. 5. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Delimitation Commission that the cadastral map has been utilised by the Commission and the map prepared by the Revenue cannot be accepted as there is no such instructions under the guidelines. Actually, the map used is the published cadastral map of the Panchayat as envisaged in the guidelines. The objections raised were considered at the time of enquiry. 6. It is further pointed out that the geographical features of the Grama Panchayat are of such a nature and the delimitation is made clockwise starting from north west as contemplated in the guidelines. It is pointed out that Ward No.I will be the north west one. A perusal of the map, Ext.P6 will show that actually ward No.1 is a north-west one. True that Ward No.XI now shown is slightly projected towards south-west. It cannot be taken as the north-western ward as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, nothing turns on the merit of the said objection. 7. Evidently, all the objections have been considered. It is not the law that every proposal by parties should result in a fresh enquiry. Herein, wpc 20041/2010 3 after the writ petition was filed, the objections were again verified by the Delimitation Commission. The objection that Ward No.XIV has been formed without any proper method, is also denied by the Commission. It is pointed out that the geographical features of the Grama Panchayat were considered while forming the said ward. The said ward has been carved out in terms of the geographical signs and there is no prohibition in cutting and crossing main roads. The only insistence is that geographical features of the wards should be considered. 8. As all the objections have been properly considered by the Delimitation Commission, I do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings issued by the Commission and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/