Back
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Mohammed Kutty Haji & Others
Versus
The State Election Commission, Kerala (Through) Its Secretary & Others
W.P.(C).Nos.18801 of 2010 (A) & 21098 of 2010 (J)
Decided on : 16-07-2010
Delimitation Commission - Proceedings - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, Section 10(2)
Fact of the Case:
The Delimitation Commission issued an order varying the delimitation of constituencies, which was challenged by the petitioners. The Commission had received fresh objections after the last date fixed for objections, and subsequently issued a revised order cancelling the original order. The legality of this action was under challenge in the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission's acceptance of fresh objections after the last date fixed for objections, and the subsequent cancellation of the original order, was impermissible. The court held that the Commission did not follow a fair procedure and quashed the revised orders issued by the Commission.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the Commission's action in accepting fresh objections after the last date fixed for objections and cancelling the original order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for delimitation of constituencies as per Section 10(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It held that the Commission's power is limited to delimiting constituencies after considering objections and suggestions, and that finality is attached to the order passed after such consideration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the revised orders issued by the Commission, and directed the Commission to publish the final notification as per the original order.
The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Delimitation Commission whereby the order passed by the Commission as per Ext.P8 delimiting the constituencies, has been varied.
2. The draft proposal was published by the Commission on 21.12.2009 calling for suggestions and objections. We are concerned with Ward Nos.1 and 2 of Vengara Grama Panchayat. Ward No.1 is named as Kolappuram East and Ward No.2 is named as Kuttoor North. The Secretary of the Panchayat gave his report in the matter and accordingly the draft was published. Certain objections have been filed by the petitioners and other interested parties and Ext.P4 is the copy of the objections and suggestions submitted by the first petitioner. Ext.P5 is the objections and suggestions submitted by petitioners 2 and 3. Ext.P6 is an additional objection/suggestion made by the first petitioner. Ext.P7 is the objection/suggestion submitted by the elected member of the first ward.
3. After considering the suggestions/objections and after hearing the parties, the Delimitation Commission as per Ext.P8, ordered that building Nos.440 to 514 which are included in Ward No.1 are to be included in Ward No.2 and the geographical boundary be accordingly varied. This order was passed by the Commission after conducting enquiry through the District Collector and after hearing the objectors on 15.3.2010. Accordingly, in Ext.P8 a direction was issued to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to forward the details showing the division of wards along with the maps to the Delimitation commission before 8.6.2010, through the District Collector.
4. Thereafter, by Ext.P9, a single line order was passed by the Commission on 9.6.2010 stating that the direction in Ext.P8 stands cancelled. This is under attack in the writ petitions.
5. When W.P.(C)No.18801/2010 came up for hearing on 24.6.2010, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submitted that the Commission is prepared to offer a hearing to the petitioners. After conducting a hearing, fresh proceedings have been issued by the Commission as per Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C)No.21098/2010 upholding Ext.P9 itself. This is under attack in W.P.(C).No.21098/2010.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Delimitation Commission.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Commission has no power to receive any fresh objection after the last date fixed for receipt of objections, in the light of the general guidelines issued by the Commission itself and Section 10(2) of the Act. It is evident that they have received a fresh objection/suggestion on 8.6.2010, long after Ext.P8 order dated 30.4.2010 was issued. Without anything more, on the next day itself, i.e. Ext.P9 order has been passed canceling the direction in Ext.P8. If at all there is any power to the Commission, it is only to correct a printing mistake or error arising from an inadvertent slip or omission under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is also submitted that the Commission has acted with undue haste in passing Ext.P9. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Mohd. Abdul Ghani and others ((1995) 6 SCC 721), that of a Division Bench of this Court in Kunhabdulla and others v. State of Kerala and others (2000 (2) KLJ 709), another decision of this Court in Chirayinkeezhu A. Babu v. Delimitation Commission and others (2010 (2) KLT 957 = 2010 (1) KHC 953) and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in Association of the Resident of MHOW v. Delimitation Commission of India (AIR 2008 MP 236).
8. To appreciate the legal arguments, the following facts are relevant. The Delimitation Commission has issued general guidelines for the delimitation of wards of Village/Block/District Panchayats. The draft proposals for delimitation of wards of Village Panchayats were published on 21.12.2009 and the date for receipt of object
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
