K. P. Raveendran vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Government

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(Ker) 484

Judges : THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
K.P.Raveendran - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Government - Respondent
Case No : WP.(C).No.14429, 14553, 14861, 14921, 14993, 16376, 16770, 16997 & 17567 of 2005 and 20569 of 2004
Decided On : 08/05/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioners: P.K. Vijayamohanan, M.P. Prabhanandan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, N. Ratnasingh, Advocate General, John Joseph Vettikkad, Govt. Pleader, R3 & R4, P.M. Pareeth, R2, T.P. Kelu Nambiar, (SR), Advocate, Anil Thomas, Spl. Govt. Pleader, Murali Purushothaman, SC, K.S.E. Commn.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles.226 and 243Q - can it be done under an exercise for the purpose of the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution? Is the impugned œde-linking of certain urban areas from the municipalities, for being treated as rural areas, unconstitutional? If such action is permissible in terms of the Constitution, could it be subjected to control by judicial review If so, is the impugned action vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the three well-recognized grounds? Broadly, these are the issues that arise for decision in these Writ Petitions - S.4(2)(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter the Municipality Act , for short, is also challenged in WP(C) No. 16997 of 2005, as unconstitutional - Held, There cannot be a transition of the constitutionally created smaller urban area, larger urban area and a transitional area, to be a village, to fall into Part IX of the Constitution and such an exercise cannot be done under Part IX A of the Constitution. The Municipality, in relation to a transitional area or a smaller urban area or a larger urban area on its coming into existence, becomes a constitutional institution and cannot be abolished by an act of the Legislative without specific authorization in that regard in the Constitution. Unless the power to re-transit an area which has become smaller urban area or larger urban area, to be a rural area is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it will result in conceding a power to re-transit an area from the operation of Part IX A to Part IX of the Constitution. A rural area after its transition to be an urban area, thereby becoming a 'smaller urban area' or a 'larger urban area' in terms of Art. 243Q of the Constitution of India, cannot be converted to be a rural area. No such exercise can be done under the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution of India or otherwise. The delinking of certain urban areas from the municipalities, for being treated as rural areas is unconstitutional and void - Where an exercise of power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply and that the public has a right to be heard - Court repeated exercises of successive Governments could not be viewed to be in the interest of the public at large and against the very object of the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, intended to give the Local Self Government Institutions, the status of constitutional authorities, insulating them from governmental intervention except to the extent referable to the Constitution - Writ Petitions allowed.

Judgment :-

1. Can a rural area, after its transit to be an urban area, thereby becoming a "smaller urban area" or a "larger urban area" in terms of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, be re-transited to be a rural area? If so, can it be done under an exercise for the purpose of the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution? Is the impugned "de-linking" of certain urban areas from the municipalities, for being treated as rural areas, unconstitutional? If such action is permissible in terms of the Constitution, could it be subjected to control by judicial review? If so, is the impugned action vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the three well-recognized grounds? Broadly, these are the issues that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Section 4(2)(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter, the "Municipality Act", for short, is also challenged in WP.(C).No.16997 of 2005 as unconstitutional.

Relevant common facts:

2. As per SRO No.468/97 and SRO No.469/94, respectively, the Governor notified the "villages" and the "intermediate levels", for the purpose of Part IX of the Constitution, in exercise of the powers, in that regard, conferred by Clauses (g) and (c) of Article 243. Each of the Villages so specified was to have the territorial area of the Panchayat that then existed, as shown against each of the Villages so notified. As per SRO No.470/94, the Governor, in exercise of the powers, in that regard, conferred by Clause (d) of Article 243P and Clause (2) of Article 243Q, notified the "smaller urban areas" and the "larger urban areas", so enlisted in Schedules I and II therein and further notifying that each area so specified shall be a municipal area for the purpose of Part IXA of the Constitution. SRO.No.468/94, SRO No.469/94 and SRO No.470/94 were published as per GO (P) No.86/94/LAD dated 20-4-1994.

3. By SRO No.974/99 published as per GO(P).No.224/99/LSGD dated 30-11-1999, the Governor notified the areas of Andoor, Kodiyeri, Perumpazhuthur and Ezhuvathuruthy Grama Panchayats to be "smaller urban areas" and the areas of Ulloor, Nemom, Attipra, Kadakampally and Thiruvallam Grama Panchayats to be "larger urban areas" for the purpose of Part IXA, with effect from 1-10-2000. The areas, Andoor, Kodiyeri, Ezhuvathuruthy and Perumpazhuthur were included in the Thaliparambu, Thalassery, Ponnani and Neyyattinkara Municipalities respectively and the areas, Ulloor, Nemom, Attipra, Kadakampally and Thiruvallam were included in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. Consequential notifications, SRO No.975/99, published as per GO(P).No.225/99/LSGD dated 30-11-1999 and SRO No.976/99, published as per GO(P).No.226/99/LSGD dated 30-11-1999, were issued under the Municipality Act. As per SRO No.1056/99, published as per GO(P)No.253/99/LSGD dated 21-12-1999, the Governor notified, with effect from 1-10-2000, certain areas as "smaller urban areas", thereby adding respectively, the areas of Arthatt Grama Panchayat and Wards No.2, 3, 9, 11 and parts of Wards No.1 and 10 of Chovannur Grama Panchayat to the Kunnamkulam Municipality; Wards No.11 and 12 of Meppadi Grama Panchayat between Manikuni and Puthoorvayalthodu to the Kalpetta Municipality and the areas of Naderi Desam in Arikulam Grama Panchayat, comprising of 3 wards, to the Quilandy Municipality. Consequential notifications, SRO No.1057/99, published as per GO (P) No.254/99/LSGD dated 21-12-1999 and SRO No.1058/99, published as per GO(P).No.255/99/LSGD dated 21-12-1999, were issued under the Municipality Act.

4. With effect from 1-10-2005, the "larger urban areas" of Nemom, Thiruvallam and Attipra of the Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation and the "smaller urban areas", Andoor, Kodiyeri, Ezhuvathuruthy, Perumpazhuthur, Arthat and Naderi Desom in Thaliparamba, Thallassery, Ponnani, Neyyattinkara, Kunnamkulam and Quilandy Municipalities respectively, were notified by the Governor, as "Village Panchayats" for the purpose of Part IXA of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document