The Delimitation Commission's powers are limited post-publication of final orders, restricted to correcting printing mistakes only.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to set aside Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 by issuing appropriate writ or order.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or to the respondents to proceed with the election process for the Kasaragod Block Panchayat based on the Exhibit P5 order.

iii) declare that the Delimitation Commission becomes funks officio after publication of the final order

iv) declare that the Delimitation Commission has no powers to amend the delimitation notification once issued except correcting printing mistakes and identical errors.

v) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the petitioner further undertakes that they are ready and willing to produce an English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;

vi) award cost to the petitioner;

vii) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;”[SIC]

2. The petitioner challenged Exts.P7 and P8 orders.

The petitioner is a voter for election to the Kasaragod Block Panchayath. In the process of election, a draft notification was issued by the Delimitation Commission on 30-05-2025 as evident by Ext.P1 and published Ext.P2 map. Since the draft notification and the map are totally against the law governing the field, it is submitted that the petitioner, who is an office bearer of the political party namely CPI(M) has submitted Ext.P3 objection. A hearing was conducted after submission of the objections and considering the material objections. A final Delimitation order was published by the Delimitation Commission on 11-07-2025 as evident by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the map appended to the notification is the further submission. It is the definite case of the petitioner that, on publication of the final delimitation notification, the Delimitation Commission has become functus officio and the only power after final notification is as per Section 11 , to correct printing mistakes and identical errors and therefore the statue limits the power specifically, prohibiting any amendment or review. Hence it is submitted that Exts.P7 and P8 orders are unsustainable. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Delimitation Commission.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 2 and 3.

It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit:

“4. It is submitted that as per proceeding No. SDC/209/2025/SDC2 dated 04-07-2025, the 2" Respondent Delimitation Commission had decided to finalise Ext. P1 draft delimitation proposal of Kasargod Block Panchayat with one amendment as mentioned therein and direction had been issued to the Secretary of Block Panchayat to submit final delimitation proposal. Accordingly, Ext. P5 final order delimiting the constituencies in Kasargod Block Panchayat was issued by the 2^nd Respondent Delimitation Commission on 10-07-2025 and the same was published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) as S.R.O. No. 780/2025 dated 11- 07-2025.

5. However thereafter, it was found that instead of uploading the constituency division list of Kasargod Block Panchayat as per 2^nd Respondent Delimitation Commission’s proceeding No. SDC/209/2025/SDC2 dated 04-07-2025, by way of an inadvertent slip, a working copy of constituency division list was uploaded in the State Printing Department website. Therefore, immediately on noticing that a wrong constituency division list has been published in the gazette in respect of Kasargod Block Panchayat, the 2^nd Respondent Delimitation Commission in exercise of its power conferred under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, issued Ext. P7 erratum order, replacing the wrong constituenc