IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26981 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MOIDEEN KOYA, 16/363 DALINTANKAM, THANGAL'S ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION.KOZHIKODE PIN-673 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/AUTHORISED OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020. 3. THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P14 Delimitation order passed by the State Election Commission on 28.8.2010 in respect of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is a resident and voter of Ward No.58 of Kozhikode Corporation. He challenges Ext.P14 on the ground that there is no change in the population, and therefore, the boundaries of wards identified and determined prior to the election held in the year 2005 cannot be altered, based on the same sensus, viz., sensus of the year 2001. It is contended that the boundaries of 55 existing wards of Kozhikode Corporation were altered substantially and that the said alteration is illegal. 2. I heard Sri.P.P.Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Delimitation Commission. The learned standing counsel for the State Delimitation Commission submitted that after the provisional W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2010 2 delimitation proposal was submitted by the Secretary of the Kozhikode Corporations, objections were received from various persons including the petitioner, they were heard and considered and thereafter the final delimitation order was passed making the proposals submitted by the Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation. He further submitted that even if the basis for delimitation is sensus of the year 2001, the State Delimitation Commission can alter the boundaries of the wards on the basis of the strength fixed by the Government. He also submitted that three neighbouring Panchayats were added to the Corporation which led to the increase in the number of wards. 3. In my opinion, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that in the absence of fresh sensus, the delimitation commission have no right to alter the boundaries of the existing wards of Kozhikode Corporation. Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 empowers the Government to notify the total number of seats of the Councillors to be filled up direct election in a Town Panchayat, Municipality and W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2010 3 Municipal Corporation considering the population of the area of the Municipality concerned. Sub-section 3(b) of Section 6 of the said act stipulates that in case of a Municipal Corporation where the population exceeds four lakhs, 52 councilors for the population of first four lakhs and one each for every ten thousand exceeding four lakhs subject to a maximum of one hundred Councillors. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the population of Bepur, Cheruvannur and Elathur Panchayats were added to the Kozhikode Corporation limits by the State Government/State Delimitation Commission and the population of the said area was also taken into account while determining the number of Councillors, in the manner prescribed in Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It was considering the above aspects that the wards in the Kozhikode Corporation were increased from 55 to 75 in the ensuing election. The number of Councillors have been determined taking into account the population of the Municipal Corporation, I am of the opinion that the objection made by the petitioner to the delimitation exercise W.P.(C) No.26981 of 2010 4 carried out by the respondents cannot be sustained. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.