High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Sreekala k., manchakkattil
Versus
state of kerala, represented by its Secretary, Local Administration (EM) Department & Others
WP(C).No. 14160 of 2010(T)
Decided on : 22-07-2010
Kerala Municipality Act 1994 Section. 4( 2 ) (e) - Constitution of India, Article,243P, Art.icle, 243Q( 1) and Art.icle 243Q( 2) - Petitions concern the challenge against the notifications whereby certain Panchayats have been added to Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode Corporations; the addition of certain Panchayats to the existing Municipalities and challenge against the conversion of a Panchayat as a Municipality itself. Since common questions arise for consideration, they are disposed of by a common judgment - Held, Municipal Council can be formed for a smaller urban area, going by Art.243Q(b). Herein, going by the report of the Chief Town Planner, the Panchayat fulfills the criteria for declaration as a smaller urban area and accordingly a notification was issued by the Government. There is no contention that the figures like population, area, density, etc. are not correct. Therefore, the same are relevant for issuing such a notification and accordingly, it was issued also- With regard to the contention that the Panchayat was not consulted, as already held, such a consultation is not mandatory, going by the proviso to S.4(2) of the Act and the same principles will apply herein also - Petition is dismissed.
1. These writ petitions concern the challenge against the notifications whereby certain Panchayats have been added to Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode Corporations; the addition of certain Panchayats to the existing Municipalities and challenge against the conversion of a Panchayat as a Municipality itself. Since common questions arise for consideration, they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. First I will deal with the challenge against the addition of certain Panchayats to two existing Corporations, viz. Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. These writ petitions are: W.P.(C) Nos.18019/2010, 18167/2010, 18543/2010, 18931/2010, 19508/2010 and 20079/2010. The notifications putting forth the proposal, order rejecting the objections and the subsequent final notifications are common in respect of all these Panchayats. W.P.(C) Nos.18019/2010, 18167/2010, 18543/2010, 18931/2010, 19508/2010 & 20079/2010
3. The narration of the facts as stated in W.P.(C) Nos.18019/2010 show the following: By Ext.P1 dated 9.12.2009 published in the Gazette, the Government proposed to add Sreekaryam, Vattiyoorkavu, Kudappanakunnu, Kazhakkoottam and Vizhinjam Grama Panchayats to Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and Elathur, Cheruvannur - Nallalam and Bepur Grama Panchayats to Kozhikode Corporation. Objections/suggestions were invited from individuals, Village Panchayats and Municipal Corporations in the matter. By Ext.P5 order No.102/10/LA dated 22.5.2010 these objections were considered and it was decided to implement the proposal and to issue appropriate notification, to be effective from 1.10.2010. The petitioners are residents within Sreekaryam Grama Panchayat and the first petitioner had filed an objection to the proposal. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18931/2010 challenges the addition of Kazhakottam Grama Panchayat to Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20079/2010 challenge the addition of Vizhinjam Grama Panchayat to the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The notification and the orders are the same. In W.P.(C) No.18167/2010 the challenge is against the addition of Elathur, Cheruvannur-Nallalam and Bepur Grama Panchayats to Kozhikode Corporation, in W.P.(C) No.18543/2010 the challenge is against the addition of Cheruvannur-Nallalam Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation and in W.P.(C) No.19508/2010 the petitioner challenges the addition of Bepur Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation. The exhibits are referred to hereinafter with reference to W.P. (C) No.18019/2010.
4. Heard Shri K. Ramakumar, Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, and Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel, and learned counsel Shri V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Shri P.P. Jacob, Shri C.P. Mohammed Nias, Shri George Poonthottam, Shri Kaleeswaram Raj and Shri Sudhi Vasudevan, for the petitioners, and learned Advocate General Shri C.P. Sudhakara Prasad for the State and Shri Murali Purushothaman learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Delimitation Commission.
5. The questions raised in these writ petitions are many fold, requiring interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and that of the Municipalities Act. The main contentions are the following: Article 243Q provides constitution of three types of local bodies, viz. Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation. The Village Panchayats herein are really rural areas and if at all there is a transition to an urban area, going by Article 243Q, they can be formed only as a Nagar Panchayat which is envisaged for a "transitional area" and there is no provision to add them to a Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it is contended that a Grama Panchayat cannot be directly added to/or converted as a Municipal Corporation. Section 4(2)(e) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), providing such merger of a Panchayat area geographically lying adjacent to a Municipality, is unconstitutional, as it is in contravention of Article 243Q. If at
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.