Under challenge in these writ petitions is G.O.(P) Nos. 145/2015 and 148/2015 issued by the Local Self Government Department dated 30.4.2015 by which the Municipality of Taliparamba has been divided into the municipalities of Taliparamba and Andoor.

2. The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015 is the Vice Chairman of Taliparamba Municipality and the second petitioner in the said writ petition is the elected representative of Ward No.23 on the said municipality which belonged to the erstwhile Andoor panchayath. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16493 of 2015 is a local resident of Andoor which is now within the limits of Taliparamba municipality.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the Government bifurcating the Taliparamba municipality into Taliparamba municipality and Andoor municipality in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 (2) (c) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. According to them, the said action is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act and Constitution and are vitiated by extraneous consideration and political motivation.

4. In W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015, a member of the Taliparamba Municipality Councilor got himself impleaded as additional sixth respondent. He supported the bifurcation.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in both writ petitions, they have justified their stand. According to them, a committee was constituted to study the issue, guidelines were issued to the committee and after considering the report of the said committee, objections were called for and after hearing the objections, the preliminary notification was issued. According to the State, there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the bifurcation.

6. I have heard Mr. C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015 and Mr. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16493 of 2015. I have also heard Sri.K.P. Dhandapani, the learned Advocate General and Sri.Tom K. Thomas, the learned Special Government Pleader to AG. I have also heard Mr.Sunil Nair Palakkat, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent in W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015 and Mr.Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission as well as the Kerala State Delimitation Commission, who rendered proper assistance by placing various judicial pronouncements in the realm.

7. The writ petitioners have raised a contention that the Government ought to have consulted the existing municipality before effecting the bifurcation. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Saji Joseph v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 672], in which this Court defined the scope of the word 'consultation' in Section 4(2) of the Panchayath Raj Act. It was held by this Court that for a meaningful consultation with the panchayath, they are to be told as to the reasons which prompted the government to have such proposal. It is crucial to note that the aforesaid decision was rendered in the contest of considering a case relating to the Panchayath Raj Act. Section 4 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that the Government may, after consultation with the panchayath, pass such orders as they deem fit as to the disposal of any part of the property vested in the village/ panchayath which has ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any village or group of villages and the discharge of the liabilities of the village panchayath relating to such property or arising from such village including all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. However, Section 4 of the Municipality Act, does not contemplate any consultation with the local authority before exercising the power under Section 4(2) of the Act unlike in the Panchayath Raj Act, which mandates the consideration of the opinions and the suggestions of the Village Panchayath, Town Panchayath or Municipal Corporation in the process of bifurcation. The legislature has e