IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20102 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.V.JOSE, S/O. VARKEY, KILUCKAN HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA.P.O., PIN-683586. 2. V.P.CHERIYAN, S/O. POULO, VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA.P.O., PIN-683586. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OBSERVATORY LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM-682030. 4. SECRETARY, AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AYYAMPUZHA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683586. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, FOR R1 & R2 SMT. K.R. DEEPA, FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20102 of 2010- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The challenge is against the finalisation of the draft proposal for delimitation of the wards of Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat. 2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission. The total number of wards were 12 prior to the delimitation. Prior to the publication of the draft, the petitioners submitted detailed objections to the draft, as per Ext.P4 which was followed by similar objections, Exts.P5 and P6. Mainly it is contended that actually the number of voters in Ward Nos.I and II are much less than the numbers shown in the draft publication of wards. The number of residential houses/rooms are below 500. There was a hearing subsequently and finally Ext.P7 has been passed by the Delimitation Commission. It is pointed out that none of the points raised by the petitioners have been answered in Ext.P7. 3. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a statement explaining various aspects. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ward Nos.I and II are mainly interspersed with plantations and the number of voters are too low in these wards. Therefore, the process of wpc 20102/2010 2 delimitation cannot be supported. It is pointed out that a verification of the houses or rooms shown as occupied by the plantation workers will show that many of them are vacant. The average number of voters will be around 300 in these two wards. It is therefore pointed out that the same does not justify the delimitation as undertaken now. 4. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is submitted that an enquiry was conducted into the objections by the Additional Tahsildar, Aluva and he found that there are no merits in the contentions and hence none of the proposals were recommended. It is further pointed out that the proposals have been brought in the light of the population which is reflected in the last census. The average population is taken as 1146 and in Ward No.I it is 1035, in Ward No.II it is 1042, in Ward No.III it is 1064, etc. There are 13 wards now in the Ayyampuzha Panchayat. It is further pointed out that only the population included in each ward can be assessed and not the number of voters. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only the number of voters and actual number of residential houses permanently occupied alone can be taken as the criteria. This contention cannot be accepted, since under Section 10(1) (a) proviso of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the criteria of division of wards shall be on the basis of the wpc 20102/2010 3 population. The guidelines also prescribes the same method. 6. The next argument is that the map relied upon is not correct. It is pointed out that delimitation was done clock-wise starting from north-west and the contention otherwise is not correct. A perusal of the cadastral map of the Panchayat, according to the first respondent, will clearly show that the delimitation is done as per the norms and guidelines. 7. It is clear that the Delimitation Commission has considered all the objections. It not the law that every proposal by parties should result in a fresh enquiry. There is no violation of the guidelines or the statutory provisions. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/