K. Narayana Kurup, J.

The dispute highlighted in this batch of Writ Petitions which have been referred to us by a learned Single judge relates to the de-novo de-limitation of wards in the various Grama Panchayats in the State by the State Election Commission (for short'Election Commission') in the purported exercise of his power under S.10A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') in flagrant violation of his own guidelines and well settled principles of law resulting in upsetting the de-limitation of wards ordered by the District Collector - who is the delegate of the Election Commission - after an elaborate exercise of local inspection, publication of preliminary notification, final notification, hearing of affected parties etc. Petitioners allege that the Election Commission has done so with the mala-fide intention of dancing to the tune of the political parties in power which amounts to gerrymandering and which is objectionable in law. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders of de-limitation passed by the Election Commission under S.10A of the

Act be quashed as utterly mala-fide, totally introducing new boundaries which are not there at all. In some cases prayers have been made to grant a declaration that S.10A of the Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and confers unguided power on the Election Commission and is therefore liable to be declared as unconstitutional.

2. We may first deal with the latter category of cases in which the vires of S.10A of the Act are under challenge.

3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General Mr. M.K. Damodaran and Mr. N. Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel for the Election Commission.

4. The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that S.10A of the Act introduced by Act 13/2000 in as much as it confers power on the Election Commission to review any order passed by the Government or the Authorised Officer is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice offending Art.14 of the Constitution of India, and since orders passed under S.10A of the Act is beyond scrutiny by a Court of Law barring judicial review, it is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and the Rule of Law entrenched therein. Per contra, it is contended by the State and the Election Commission that in the light of Art.243(o) of the Constitution of India the validity of S- 10A of the Act as added by Act 13/2000 shall not be called in question in any Court of Law which operates as a complete bar to judicial review and as such the Writ Petitions are not maintainable, the orders passed by the Election Commission will have force of 'law' when published in the Gazette and in that view the same will be'law' for the purpose of Art.243 (o) of the Constitution and as such beyond challenge before any Court of Law and the powers of de-limitation exercised by the Election Commission is a legislative function to which principles of natural justice will not apply, and in any case the powers of review vested in Election Commission under S.10A of the Act is unlimited and in that sense no shackles can be placed on the Election Commission to pass any order as it deems fit while exercising the power of review under S.10A.

5. The first contention of the respondents as already noticed is based on Art.243(o) of the Constitution which ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in electoral matters and in particular Art.243(o)(a) by which the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Art.243(k) shall not be called in question in any court. In other words there is a bar of judicial review of the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Art.243(k) of the Constitution. Under Art.243(k)(1) of the Co