IMPORTANT POINT
The Delimitation Commission's authority to conduct delimitation is restricted to changes in population or the number of wards as specified in the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the residents of different wards of the Cherpulassery Municipality, the 2^nd respondent herein. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that, despite Ext.P4 notification issued by the Government, constituting a Delimitation Commission, the 3^rd respondent herein, for the purpose of carrying out the exercise of delimitation in all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State by dividing the wards and fixing the boundaries thereof, the 3^rd respondent Commission had taken a decision not to carry out such exercise for the 2^nd respondent-Municipality.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The 2^nd respondent-Municipality was constituted by the Government as per GO(P)No.152/2015/LSGD dated 30.04.2015 under Section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. The said Municipality was constituted by converting the then existing Cherpulassery Grama Panchayat and adding three wards of Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayat. Upon constitution of the same, as per GO(P)No.164/2015/LSGD dt.11.5.2015, the number of wards in the Municipality was notified as 33. Thereafter, the Delimitation Commission vide Ext.P2 order, divided the Municipality into 33 wards, by fixing the boundaries thereof, on 7.9.2015. According to the petitioners, the delimitation process culminated in Ext.P2 was conducted in a hurry within four months and there were widespread complaints against the delimitation of wards. According to the petitioners, it was carried out in a haphazard and unscientific manner without adhering to the guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission in this regard. Elections were carried out, based on the division of wards as per Ext P2.

3. As per Ext.P5, the Government notified the constitution of a Delimitation Commission on 14.06.2024 for carrying out the delimitation exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State, for the elections to be conducted in the year 2025. Thereafter, Ext.P3 notification was published on 09.07.2024, amending Section 6(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act by increasing the minimum and maximum number of wards in the Municipalities, as 26 and 53 respectively, from 25 and 52 respectively. Later, Ext.P4 notification was issued on 10.09.2024, refixing the number of wards in all the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations. As per the said notification, the number of wards fixed for the 2^nd respondent Municipality was determined as 33, which was equal to the number of wards notified in the year, 2015.

4. The 3rd respondent-Commission published Ext.P6 guidelines for carrying out the delimitation exercise consequent to the Exts.P3 and P4 notifications. In Ext.P6, it is specified that, as per the Ext.P5 notification, a delimitation exercise is envisaged for all the Municipalities/Municipal Corporations based on 2011 census, even if there is no change in the number of wards. However, later, as per Ext.P7, an amendment was brought in, in Ext P6 Guidelines, wherein it is specified that, in respect of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, where there is no change in the number of wards, it is not necessary to carry out the delimitation exercise. Thus, in the light of Ext.P7, the 3^rd respondent-Commission excluded the 2^nd respondent Municipality from the list of Local Self Government Institutions where the delimitation exercise is to be carried out. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Ext.P7 notification. According to the petitioners, such an amendment and consequential exclusion of the 2^nd respondent Municipality from the delimitation, is beyond the powers of the 3^rd respondent Commission, and the same is unsustainable. A consequential relief to command the 3^rd respondent to carry out the delimitation in the 2^nd respondent Municipality was also sought.

5. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 1st respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. The 3^rd respondent also filed a statement opposing the reliefs sou