Under challenge in these writ petitions are G.O(P) Nos.151, 152 and 153/2015/LSGD. dated 30.4.2015 by which three grama panchayats were upgraded to municipality and one grama panchayat was annexed to the newly constituted municipality.

2. W.P(C) No.15137 of 2015, 15521 of 2015 and 16490 of 2015 are against the upgradation of Mukkom, Koduvally and Mananthawady grama panchayats respectively as Mukkom Municipality, Koduvally Municipality and Mananthawady Municipality. W.P(C) No.16935 of 2015 is against the merging of Payyampally Grama Panchayat to newly constituted Mananthawady Municipality.

3. The case projected by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution defines a smaller urban area as such area as the Governor may having regard to the population of the area, density of the population, the revenue generated in local administration, the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors that may deem fit specified by public notification for the purpose of that part. Therefore, according to them, unless there is a public notification by the Governor declaring an area as a smaller urban area considering the conditions mentioned in Article 243Q(2), there cannot be any constitution of a municipal council for a smaller urban area.

4. In W.P(C) No.15137 of 2015 filed against the upgradation of Mukkom Grama Panchayat, the member of the Mukkom Grama Panchayat got himself impleaded as additional 5th respondent, who filed counter affidavit supporting the upgradation.

5. In W.P(C) No.15521 of 2015 which is against the upgradation of Koduvally Grama Panchayat, the 2nd respondent panchayat through its Secretary has filed a counter affidavit supporting the upgradation.

6. In all the writ petitions, State has filed counter affidavits justifying their action in issuing the impugned notifications upgrading the existing panchayats and merging Payyampally Grama Panchayat to the newly constituted municipality. It was contended that after conducting thorough study and having regard to the special circumstances which are relevant and material that the committee constituted by the Government proposed the upgradation as above and this was considered by the cabinet, after calling for objections and the notifications were issued. It was pointed out that by the upgradation of panchayats into municipalities, the residents would be able to enjoy the benefits of the following centrally sponsored schemes:

i. Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana

ii.National Urban Livelihood Mission

iii.Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme

iv.SJSRY

v. Urban 2020

vi.KSUDP Scheme

vii.BSUP Scheme

viii.JNNRUM Scheme

ix.Smart City Scheme

x. Swath Bharath Mission Scheme

xi.UIDSSMT

Besides the above the following State sponsored schemes are also there:

i. Ayyankalli Urban Employment Guarantee Scheme

ii.Scheme under Decentralised Planning

iii.Schemes for provision of Night Shelters

iv.Urban Initiative for Non-motorised conveyance facilities

v. Construction of modern slaughter houses, Gas Crematorium etc.

7. It was also stated that none of the rights of the petitioners is infringed by the formation of the local bodies and no harm is likely to be caused by the action of the Government.

8. I have heard Mr. P.V.Kunhikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.15137 & 15527 of 2015, Mr. C.J.Joy, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.16935 and 16940 of 2015, Mr. K. P. Dandapani, the learned Advocate General ably assisted by Mr. Tom K. Thomas, the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr. K. M. Firoz, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent in W.P(C) No.15521 of 2015, Mr. R.Sudhish, the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent in W.P(C) No.15137 of 2015 and Mr. Murali Purushothaman, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission, who rendered proper assistance by placing various judicial pronouncements in t