Kerala High Court
Nizar A @ Perumathura Nizar vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2025
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO.38014 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL HAMEED MOULAVI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.SAIDALI, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, MANAKKADAVU,
PANTHIRANKAVU POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 019.
2 V.P.ABDUL SALEEM,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, MARJAN HOUSE,
KOLOTHUPARAMBU,KONTHANARI, G.A COLLEGE POST,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
3 K.K KOYA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.CHERIYA MOOZA, KAIMANGALATH HOUSE, PALAZHI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
4 VINOD KUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, 12/598, MEKKOTH
ULLATTIL PARAMBU, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 019.
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 2
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION,
COMMISSION,CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS
JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
4 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 678 001.
5 SECRETARY,
OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013)
K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEING FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.38651/2024 AND 40036/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 21.03.2025DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38651 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MAJEED M.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.MOOSA, RAHIMAN MANZIL, PACHAMBALA,
ICHILANGOD, KASARGOD, PIN - 671 324.
BY ADVS.
R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
SALEEK.C.A.
SARUN RAJAN
THAREEK T.S.
HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA,
VIKAS BHAVAN, JANAHITHAM, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
4 PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR, LSGD,
PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE SWARAJ BHAVAN,
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 4
NANTHANCODE.FIFTH FLOOR KOWDIAR (PO)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.
5 JOINT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671 121.
6 MANGALPADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
MANGALPADI P.O., KASARGOD, PIN - 671 324.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHIRAZ ABDULLA M.S.
K.ABDUL NASSAR(K/366/2011)
VISHNU DEV C.S.(K/000647/2023)
ALDIN JOSE M.J.(K/4477/2024)
MUHAMMED AZHARUDEEN A.(K/003778/2023)
AKHIL TOM(K/4584/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40036 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRAMOD KUMAR S.N.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA LSG EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,
STATE COMMITTEE, JOINT COUNCIL OFFICE, PRESS CLUB
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, RESIDING AT
KEERAMBHALLIL HOUSE, MADIKAI P.O., KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671 314.
BY ADVS.
P.P.BIJU
PARTHASARATHI M.K.
SAFNA P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 KERALA STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
REP .BY. ITS SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
3 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY. ITS SECRETARY, LMS JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 6
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SECRET SECTION) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695 001.
5 MUHAMMED ASHRAF
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE T.A.MUHAMMED, ASHAR MANZIL,
EDNEER P.O., PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 IN
IA.No.1 OF 2024 )
BY ADVS.
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
DEEPU LAL MOHAN
Adv Merseena Vincent
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP© NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO.46567 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 NIZAR A @ PERUMATHURA NIZAR, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.M.A.AZEEZ, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMATHURA P.O.,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 303.
2 FASIL HAQ M., AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMED ASEEM, THITTAYIL VEEDU, MADANVILA,
PERUMATHURA P.O., SARKARA - CHIRAYANKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 303.
3 SAJEEB K.Z, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.ZAINUDEEN K.S, SAJAD SADAN, KADINAMKULAM,
PUTHUKURICHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695 303.
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 8
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION, COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
4 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 043.
5 SECRETARY,
CHIRAYANKEEZHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 691 571.
6 SECRETARY,
AZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 305.
7 SECRETARY,
KADINAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 301.
BY ADVS. SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
Liju MP
Dinesh Mathew J Murikan
VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.(K/1451/2019)
NAYANA VARGHESE(K/283/2021)
JERRY PETER(K/3088/2023)
RIA VARGHESE(K/1367/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 9
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.38014/2024, 38651/2024, 40036/2024, 46567/2024] ...
In all these cases, the main challenge raised is against the amendment brought by the Government to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as per Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act, 15 of 2024). The notification issued in this regard is produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024. (For convenience W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 is treated as the leading case and the parties to the litigation and the exhibits produced are hereinafter referred to as per their respective ranks and sequences as mentioned in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned).
2. The basic issue involved in all these cases is with regard to the competence of the Government to bring in an amendment as referred to above to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, by which the minimum and maximum number of seats in a Panchayat to which members are to be directly elected, are increased. To be precise, as per the amended provisions, the minimum number of seats is increased to 14 from 13 and the maximum number is increased to 24 from 23.
2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 10
3. In W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 the petitioners therein are concerned with the delimitation process now in progress in Olavanna Grama Panchayath in Kozhikode district. According to them, the said Panchayat is one of the most populous Panchayats in the State of Kerala with a total population 68,432 as per the census conducted in the year 2011. Earlier, taking note of the population in the Panchayat and various other aspects, the Government issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25.4.2015 by which it was decided to bifurcate several Panchayats by creating new Panchayats and the Olavanna Panchayat was one among the same. The decision was to divide Olavanna Panchayat by creating a new Panchayat named, Pantheerankavu. Consequent to Ext.P1 notification, the 3rd respondent Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P2 and P3 final orders fixing the wards within the said Panchayats. The Ext.P1 notification was challenged by various persons before this Court mainly on the reason that new Panchayats were created by carving out certain portions of the existing villages without notifying those portions as new villages as envisaged under Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India. The said challenges were answered by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, wherein, Ext.P1 was quashed for want of prior 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 11 notification by the Governor as contemplated under Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India. After the said judgment, the Government issued SRO.No.138/2020 dated 12.02.2020 stating that as the Government cannot afford the expenditure in connection with the creation of new Panchayats, it was decided not to proceed further with the proposal to divide and create the Panchayats.
4. Now the Government has come up with Ext.P7 notification by which the amendment was carried out in Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, increasing the minimum and maximum number of seats. On the basis of Ext.P7, corresponding amendment was also made in Rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength) Amendment Rules 2024. A copy of the said notification is produced as Ext.P8. On the basis of the same, Ext.P9 notification was also published by the Government increasing the number of the wards in all the Grama Panchayats. The above amendments and the consequential notifications are under challenge in this writ petition.
5. W.P(C) No.46567 of 2024 concerns with the delimitation process in Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District, which was also included in Ext.P1 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 12 notification by which the said Panchayat was divided into two namely, Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat and Perumathura Grama Panchayat. The contentions raised in this writ petition are also similar to the contentions raised in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024. However, in addition to the above, it is also contended that, as far as the petitioners are concerned, who are the residents of Perumathura village, the creation of Perumathura Panchayat was contemplated in Ext.P7 taking note of the peculiar geographical position of the Perumathura village which is geographically separated from the other parts of the Kadinamkulam Panchayat. Therefore, according to them, creation of a separate Panchayath for the Perumathura Village is an absolute necessity which was recognized in Ext.P1, and therefore, the carrying out the delimitation process on the basis of the amendment now brought in without creating the new Panchayat as referred to above is illegal.
6. In W.P.C.No.40036 of 2024 and W.P.(C).No.38651 of 2024, the petitioners are raising similar challenges as according to them the Panchayats having high population as per the census completed in the year 2011 have to be divided by creating new Panchayats and the delimitation now in progress on the basis of the amendment brought in is not effective in view of the fact that the 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 13 same is confined to the increase in the number of wards alone. Therefore, according to them, the present delimitation is not in tune with the requirements under Article 243C of the Constitution of India.
7. The Government filed a counter affidavit mainly contending that, as far as the division of the existing local self government institutions are concerned, it is a policy decision of the State Government and as on date no such decision has been taken by the Government to bifurcate the Panchayats or Municipalities. The Government has decided only to increase the minimum and maximum number of wards in all local self government institutions uniformly, based on population. The amendments as referred to above were brought in for implementing the said decision which is well within the powers of the Government. The District Election Officer, the 4th respondent in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 filed a statement supporting the stand taken by the Government. The respective Panchayats have also filed counter affidavits opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petitions.
8. Heard Sri.Mohammed Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 and W.P.C.No.46567/24, Sri.Biju P.P., learned counsel appearing for the 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 14 petitioners in W.P.C.No.40036 of 2024, Sri.R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.38651/2024, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, the State Election commission as well as Delimitation Commission, and Smt.Deepa K.R, learned Special Government Pleader for the other official respondents.
9. According to the petitioners, the proviso to Article 243C creates an obligation upon the Government to see that a uniform ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat and the number of seats in the Panchayat to be filled by election, is maintained throughout the State. To achieve the said purpose, bifurcation of certain Panchayats including those referred to in these writ petitions are absolutely necessary and therefore, bringing in an amendment to increase the number of seats without taking such measures, is a futile exercise. Hence, it has to be interfered with.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 also placed reliance upon the statutory obligation of the Government contemplated under Section 4(2) which provides for the powers of the Government to increase the area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayath, diminish the 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 15 area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat etc. It was also contended that proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act contemplates and reiterates the necessity to maintain the ratio between the population of the territorial area of the Panchayat and the number of seats in such Panchayat as the same, throughout the State. The learned counsel for the petitioners also highlighted certain discrepancies in maintaining such uniformity, by citing the population figures in Mankulam Grama Panchayath in Idukki District, where the population is 9,594.
11. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel of the Delimitation Commission stoutly opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners. According to them, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the amendment brought by the Government as per Ext.P7 notification to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act cannot be entertained in view of the Constitutional prohibition contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out that, such prohibition was upheld in respect of the delimitation process which is under challenge in these writ petitions, in a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of this 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 16 Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor [2025 KHC Online 236]. It was also contended that the contentions raised by the petitioners on the strength of Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act were also considered in the above decision and were found against the petitioners therein. Therefore, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed, it was contended.
12. The issues raised in these writ petitions are to be considered in the above mentioned circumstances. Before moving further, the relevant Constitutional and statutory provisions have to be examined first. Article 243 C of the Constitution of India, which deals with the composition of panchayats reads as follows:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the composition of Panchayats:
Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.
(2) All the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 17 the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area.
(3) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the representation -
(a) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the village level, in the Panchayats at the intermediate level or, in the case of a State not having Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level;
(b) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level;
(c) of the members of the House of the People and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly a Panchayat area at a level other than the village level, in such Panchayat;
(d) of the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of the State, where they are registered as electors within -
(i) a Panchayat area at the intermediate level, in Panchayat at the intermediate level;
(ii) a Panchayat area at the district level, in Panchayat at the district level.
(4) The Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 18 shall have the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayats.
(5) The Chairperson of -
(a) a Panchayat at the village level shall be elected in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide; and
(b) a Panchayat at the intermediate level or district level shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members thereof."
13. Article 243O of the Constitution of India, which contemplates a bar to interference by the Courts in electoral matters reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."
2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 19
14. Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, deals with the power of the Government to with regard to the creation of panchayat reads as follows:
4. Power of the Government to constitute and specify the name and headquarters of Panchayat.-
(1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification,--
(a) a Village Panchayat for each village or for group of villages;
(b) a Block Panchayat at intermediate level; and
(c) a District Panchayat for each District Panchayat area and specify the names and headquarters of such panchayats.
(2) The Government may, at the request of the Panchayat concerned, or after consultation with the Panchayat and after previous publication of the proposal by notification,--
(a) increase the area of any [Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] by including within such Panchayat area any village or group of villages;
(b) diminish the area of any [Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] by excluding from such Panchayat area any village or group of villages;
(c) alter the headquarters of a Panchayat at any level; or
(d) alter the name of a Panchayat at any level:
Provided that any alteration extending or reducing the area of a '[Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] under clause (a) or clause (b) shall not be brought into force before the expiry of the term of the existing committee of that Panchayat.
(3) The Government may, after consultation with the Panchayat, pass such orders as they deem fit as to the disposal of any part of the property vested in a Village Panchayat [or Block Panchayat] which has 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 20 ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any village or group of villages and the discharge of the liabilities of the Village Panchayat relating to such property or arising from such village including all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
15. Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which deals with the strength of Panchayat reads as follows:
"6. Strength of Panchayats.-- (1) The total number of seats in a Village Panchayat, a Block Panchayat and a District Panchayat to be filled by direct election shall be notified by the Government in accordance with the scale specified in sub-section (3) with reference to the population of the territorial area of the Panchayat concerned.
(2) The Government may after, publication of the relevant figures of each census, by notification alter the total number of seats in a Panchayat notified under sub-section (1) subject to the scale specified in sub- section (3).
(3) The number of seats to be notified under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not,--
(a) in these case of Village Panchayat, be [less than fourteen or more than twenty-four];
(b) in these case of a Block Panchayat, be [less than fourteen or more than twenty-four];
(c) in these case of a District Panchayat, be [less than seventeen or more than thirty-three] Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayats to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout State.] 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 21 (4) The procedure of fixing the strength of a Panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed.
Section 10(1) (a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows:
"10. Division of Panchayats into constituencies.-- (1) The Government shall by notification in the Gazette, constitute a Delimitation Commission consisting of the State Election Commission as the Chairman and four Officers, not below the rank of Secretary to Government, as members. The said Delimitation Commission shall, as soon as may be after fixing the strength of a Panchayat at any level under Section 6 and after determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for Women,--
(a) divide every Panchayat into as many constituencies as there are seats and fix the boundaries of such constituencies:
Provided that the population of each constituency shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area:
Provided further that where the territorial area of a Block Panchayat is divided into constituencies, the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat and where the territorial area of a District Panchayat is divided into constituencies the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat or of any Block Panchayat, into more than one division.
2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 22 (1A) The officers for the functioning of the Delimitation Commission, procedure for the conduct of meeting including quorum and other related matters shall be such, as may be prescribed.
(1B) The State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it in this behalf shall, on determination by the Government of the number of seats to be reserved, earmarked and constituency or constituencies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women.
(2) The Delimitation Commission shall,-
(a) publish [the proposals of the Delimitation Commission] in respect of the matters mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1), with a notice specifying the date on or after which the proposals will be considered by it and by inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposals before a date specified in the notice, by affixing copies thereof on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat concerned and in such conspicuous places within the Panchayat area concerned;
(b) publish in the Gazette and in any two local newspapers having wide circulation within the Panchayat area concerned the fact of publication under clause (a);
(c) consider all objections and suggestions that may have been received by ³[the Delimitation Commission] before the date so specified; and
(d) delimit the constituencies.
(2A) The officer authorised by the State Election Commission in this behalf shall determine, as to which constituency, the constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women shall be 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 23 allotted according to rotation, by draw of lots at the time, date and place fixed by the Commission in this behalf, by notification.
(2B) After the draw of lots under sub-section (2A), the State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it shall issue an order determining the constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women.
(3) An order made by the '[State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it] [or the Delimitation Commission] shall not be called in question in any Court of law.
(3A) Every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the delimitation of constituencies under this section shall be published in the gazette and shall have the force of law. (4) The Delimitation Commission] shall furnish free of cost three copies each of the proposals published and the final orders issued under sub-section (2) to the committees at the Panchayat level concerned of all political parties having representation in the Legislative Assembly and copies of such orders shall also be made available for sale, at the price fixed by the Delimitation Commission], to all the public who require them.
16. Section 6(3), originally stood prior to the amendment in the year 2024 contemplated that, in the case of Village Panchayat the minimum number of seats should be 13 and the maximum should be 23. As per Rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 24 Strength) Rules, 1994, for areas having population not exceeding 15,000, there shall be 13 members and for areas having a population exceeding 15000, there shall be 13 members for the first 15,000 and 1 additional member for every 2,500 population in excess of 15,000 subject of a maximum of 23 members. Now, by virtue of the amendment as per Ext.P7 notification, the minimum and maximum numbers are increased by one, thereby re-fixing the numbers as 14 and 24, respectively. This is the subject matter of challenge.
17. The first objection raised by the respondents is with regard to the maintainability of these writ petitions, in the light of the Constitutional prohibition contemplated under Article 243O. In fact, the said question was specifically considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Gafoor's case (supra), where the challenge raised was against the very same delimitation process and also the Ext.P7 notification, on a different ground. There the challenge was on the ground that, the delimitation process is being carried out, based on the Census conducted in the year 2011, and in respect of the Panchayats/Municipalities in those writ petitions, a delimitation exercise on the basis of 2011 Census was already carried out before the previous election to the Local-self 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 25 Government Institutions. Therefore, it was contended that, by virtue of the stipulations contained in Section 6(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, no delimitation process could have been carried out, on the basis of the very same Census data, and the same could have been done only after new Census is conducted. Even though the learned single judge accepted the said contention and allowed the writ petitions, that common judgment was set aside by the Division Bench in the above referred decision. While considering the aforesaid challenge, one issue specifically framed by the Division Bench was as follows:
"Does the challenge to Section 6(3), which modifies the strength of the local authority, fall within the scope of the delimitation process and thereby attract the bar under Article 243 -O of the Constitution?"
18. This was answered by the Division Bench in paragraph 14 and 15 which reads as follows:
"Point I.
14. Article 243-O of the Constitution places a complete bar on the Court to entertain the validity of law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies. The Constitution did not define delimitation. Delimitation is normally understood as a process of changing the boundary of the Constituency. In 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 26 V. Ramachandra Reddy and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Others [AIR 1965 AP 40], the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed that "The word 'delimit' in its natural sense means 'to mark out as a boundary' to bound; to mark or determine the limits of; to define as a limit or boundary".
15. There cannot be any dispute that consequent upon the increase of strength, the boundaries of the wards in the local authority could be altered. This alteration is the delimitation. Therefore, there is a constitutional bar for this Court to entertain a challenge to Section 6(3). The amendment made to Section 6(3) by the State Legislature increased the strength of the Councillors. Further, there is no scope for entertaining any challenge questioning the vires of the amendment made to Section 6(3) as it is within the competence of State Legislation and it does not involve violation of fundamental rights of the writ petitioners. Also, we cannot say that there is any manifest arbitrariness on the part of the legislature to increase the strength of the local authority. Therefore, the challenge of questioning the amendment made to Section 6(3) of both the enactments must fail."
2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 27
19. Besides, the contention raised by the petitioners on the strength of Section 4 was also considered in paragraph 28, which reads as follows:
"28. The argument of the learned Counsel, Shri R. Surendran, on behalf of the writ petitioners--that a notification under Section 6(1) is linked to Section 4(1) concerning the constitution of a municipality and, therefore, cannot be altered unless there is a change in the composition of the local authority--is untenable. Section 6 is an independent provision that specifically governs the determination of the strength of Councillors in a local authority. In contrast, Section 4 pertains to the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of a local authority. Additionally, Section 4 addresses the alteration and conversion of a local authority, such as the transition from a Village Panchayat to a Town Panchayat, from a Panchayat to a Municipal Council, or from a Municipal Council to a Municipal Corporation."
20. Of course it is true that section 4 dealt with in paragraph 28 above, was the provision in the Kerala Municipality Act, but a careful reading of the corresponding provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, it can be seen that the basic principles and the stipulations under both the said provisions are one and the same, 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 28 even though the same was differently worded. The consequences of such provisions are also practically the same and therefore, the observations made by the Division Bench on the above question are also very much relevant for considering the issues involved in these cases.
21. As far as the maintainability of these writ petitions is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.[MANU/SC/10222/2024], where it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as follows:
"5.We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although Articles 329 undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot be construed to have imposed for every action of delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is deemed completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission. As a constitutional court and the guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court's duties and the principle of separation of powers."
2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 29
22. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, what was under challenge in the aforesaid decision before the Honourable Supreme Court was relating to the alleged discrepancies in the delimitation process carried out by the Delimitation Commission and it was not a case where there was a challenge against an enactment dealing with the election of the Panchayats. The prohibition contained in Article 243O pertains to the challenge against an enactment relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243K. It is to be noted that, Article 243K (4) contemplates the powers of the legislature of a State to make laws, with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections to the Panchayat. As far as Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the amendments brought to the said provisions are concerned, the same is an enactment, that comes within the scope of Article 243K(4), and thus, the bar under Article 243O is clearly applicable.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought the attention of this Court to the observations in various other judgments, wherein the parameters were set out by the Honourable Supreme Court, while entertaining the challenge against a law 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 30 made by the legislature. However, when there is a specific bar contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution, in relation to a challenge against a particular statute in a particular field, the aforesaid parameters cannot be normally applied, unless the enactment is resulting in such serious ramifications, which goes against the basic structure of the Constitution or it is completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme on the subject. As far as the contentions raised in these cases are concerned, the ramifications highlighted are not of that nature or magnitude. The petitioners also could not produce any materials to arrive at such a conclusion.
24. Moreover, in State of U.P and Others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others [(1995) Supp 2 SCC 305== AIR 1995 SC 1512], it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that, from the reading of Articles 243C, 243K and 243O it is obvious that neither the delimitation of Panchayat nor of the constituencies in the said areas and allotment of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged or the court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given.
25. As mentioned above, the amendment under challenge is the one which introduced the increase in the minimum and 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 31 maximum of the seats in the Panchayats, where elections are to be conducted. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the same defeats the purpose behind the proviso to Article 243C of the Constitution, where it is contemplated that, ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat and the number of seats in such Panchayat shall be the same through out the State, as far as practicable. Thus, the purpose of Article 243C is to provide for the law by the State for the composition of Panchayat by maintaining the ratio as referred to above, as far as practicable.
26. In exercise of the said power, or in fulfillment of the said obligation, the State formulated laws, by incorporating necessary provisions in this regard in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Chapter III of the Act, which contains Sections 4 to 9, to deal with same. Section 4 (1) deals with the power of the Government to form three tier Panchayats, whereas subsection (2) thereof deals with the powers of the Government to increase or decrease the area of the Panchayat, alter the headquarters of the Panchayath, alter the name of the Panchayat Etc.
27. In these cases, the contention of the petitioners is that the Government had earlier exercised the above power and issued Ext.P1 notification for dividing certain Panchayats, considering 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 32 various relevant aspects and realizing the necessity to have such bifurcations. According to the petitioners, even though the said notification was set aside on certain technical reasons, the fact remains that, the Government recognized the necessity to have such bifurcations. It is also the case of the petitioners that, such steps were taken by the Government, by fulfilling its obligation under the proviso to Article 243C. Therefore, the contention is that, having been convinced of the said necessity, which is in conformity with the Constitutional obligations, the Government should have resorted to the steps for such bifurcations after curing the defects that led to the judgment of this court setting aside the Ext.P1 notification. Without doing that exercise, making an amendment to section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, increasing the number of seats is not proper, it is contended.
28. However, on carefully going through the stipulations in section 4 and Section 6, I am not impressed with the said contentions. This is because, both provisions are independent provisions. Section 4 deals with the formation of Panchayats, and bifurcation of the same and matters connected thereto, whereas Section 6 deals with the powers regarding the composition of the Panchayat in terms of the number of seats in the Panchayat, once 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 33 such Panchayat is formed or bifurcated as per section 4 and at later stages. Even though, formation or bifurcation of Panchayat as per Section 4 necessitates a proceeding under Section 6, it cannot be concluded that, such formation or bifurcation is absolutely necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 6 in all cases. It is to be noted in this regard that, Section 6 (3) of the Act, provides for a scale for fixing the strength of every Panchayat in terms of number of seats. Nowhere in Section 6 of the Act, it is mentioned that, it can happen only in event of the formation of the new Panchayat or bifurcation of the existing Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioners cannot insist for bifurcation of certain existing Panchayats, before introducing the amendment of the scale contemplated in Section 6(3). The view taken by this court is fortified by the observations made by the Division Bench in Abdul Gafoor's case (supra) as well, where it was held that Section 6 is an independent provision.
29. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner that the amendment now introduced is against Article 243C and its proviso, also is not legally sustainable, for the reason hereinafter mentioned. This contention is raised by the petitioners, mainly highlighting certain disparities in the ratio referred to in proviso to 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 34 Article 243C, between certain Panchayats where the population is very low and the Panchayats with high population. As an illustration, the population figure of Mankulam Grama Panchayat (9594) in Idukki district, was highlighted as against the population of the Olavanna Panchayat where the population is 68,432 (as per the Census 2011). It was pointed out that, as per the amended provision, the strength of the Panchayat is 685 per ward for Mankulam, whereas it is 2,851 per ward for the Olavanna Panchayat. The example of Nedumpana Panchayat in Kollam district was also cited, where the population is 51,384 and the population per ward is 2,141. Thus, it was pointed out that, this amounts to gross disparity and therefore the obligation to maintain a uniform ratio as mentioned in the proviso to Article 243C is not maintained throughout the State.
30. While considering this contention, the crucial aspect to the noted is that, the necessity to maintain a uniform ratio between the population in the Panchayat and the number of seats, as contemplated in the proviso to Article 243C is not absolute and it is not necessary that, it should be maintained in all circumstances. The expression "so far as practicable" in Article 243C of the Constitution is very crucial, and it clearly conveys that the uniform 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 35 ratio is not an absolute necessity. As far as the creation or bifurcation of Panchayats is concerned, it depends upon various factors such as geographical features, population density, terrain etc. The Government has to take into account all the relevant aspects while forming or bifurcating the Panchayats and fixing the strength of such Panchayats in terms of the number of wards. Therefore, the obligation imposed upon the Government, as per the proviso to Article 243C while carrying out the said exercise, is to be fulfilled by making every endeavour to maintain such a uniform ratio throughout the State, as much as practicable. As far as the creation or bifurcation of the Panchayats are concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is a policy decision to be taken by the Government, taking note of various aspects, and it is not for this court to decide. It is also not open for any person to insist for the same, as of right. When the Government has taken a decision by taking note of all the relevant aspects, it is not for this court to decide upon the same and to give directions to the Government in this regard. Therefore, the petitioners cannot raise a contention that the amendment brought by the Government by increasing the strength of the Panchayats is to be interfered with, for the reason that some of the Panchayats 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 36 need to be bifurcated according to the petitioners, before the carrying out such amendments.
31. Moreover, the fact that the Government earlier issued a notification to bifurcate the some Panchayats as per Ext.P1 by itself cannot be ground to issue any direction in this regard to the Government. As mentioned above, it is policy decision and it is for the Government to decide, whether to continue or re-commence the process early commenced as per Ext.P1 and the petitioners do not have any enforceable right to seek for issuance of writ of mandamus, in this regard.
32. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, disparity as highlighted above by citing the example of Mankulam Panchayat, is adversely affecting the equal distribution of resources of the Government among the citizens. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that, instead of increasing the number of seats/wards, the Government should have taken steps to bifurcate highly populous Panchayats. This is also something which comes within the powers of the legislature, being policy decisions and it is not for this court to decide, so long as there is no statutory stipulation or prohibition against the increase in the number of seats/wards in Panchayats without the creation of new Panchayats 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 37 or bifurcation of the existing Panchayats. In this regard, it is to be noted that this court has already held that the power under section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is independent and does not necessarily depend upon section 4, in all cases.
33. There is yet another aspect, for which the contention of the petitioners is to be rejected. The comparison made by the petitioner to highlight the disparity in the ratio through the State is by citing the example of Mankulam Panchyat in Idukki District, as against the Panchayats in Kozhikode and Kollam districts. The basic features of the said Panchayats are completely different, as the peculiar features and characteristics of the Panchayat in Idukki, are completely different in terms of Geographical area, forests, terrain, population density, etc. Thus, the same amounts to a comparison between the unequals, and therefore, cannot be treated as a proper comparison for the purpose connected with the issues involved in these cases.
34. In W.P.(C).No.46567 of 2024, an additional contention was raised by the petitioners therein who are inhabitants of Perumanthura Village in Kollam, which comes within the limits of Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat. According to them, the Perumathura Village is geographically isolated from the other parts 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 38 of the Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat due to the water bodies surrounding the village. The village has a population of 15,000, and hence, it has to be formed into a separate Panchayat. It was also pointed out that, formation of a separate Grama Panchayat was contemplated in Ext.P1 which did not materialize. However, this court has already held that, formation and bifurcation of the Panchayat are policy matters of the Government and it is not for this court to consider the same. The petitioners do not have any vested right to seek for a writ of a mandamus. Therefore the said contention also is not acceptable.
35. In such circumstances, after considering all relevant aspects, the findings of this court are summarized in the manner as follows:
i) As the challenge is against the law enacted by the Government in relation to the matters mentioned in Article 243K of the Constitution of India, there is a prohibition in challenging the same, as per Article 243O.
ii) The petitioners could not establish that the consequences of the amendment brought in by the Kerala Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 are against basic structure of the Constitution or against the Constitutional scheme relating to the election to the Local Self Government Institutions.
iii) Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is an independent provision. Even though a formation of a new panchayat under section 4(1) or an increase or decrease in the area of an existing Panchayat as contemplated under section 4(2), may necessitate proceedings under section 6, such formation or increase/decrease of the area 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 39 of the Panchayat is not a condition precedent in all the cases, for initiating proceedings under section 6.
iv) The decisions regarding the formation of new Panchayats or increase/decrease in the area of a Panchayat are matters of policy of the Government and hence such decisions of the Government can neither be interfered with nor directions could be issued to take such decisions, by this court under normal circumstances.
v) The petitioners do not have any vested right to seek for bifurcation of their respective Panchayats In the light of the above, I am of the view that the petitioners could not establish any grounds to maintain a challenge against the amendment brought to the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, as per Kerala Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 and accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/19.3.25 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 40 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38651/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUECOPY OF SEAT WISE COUNT OF PENDING FILES BEFORE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS/OFFICES IN MANGALPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P2 TRUECOPY OF TABULAR DATA OF THE PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OF MANJESWARAM TALUK BEFORE MINISTER OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT WHICH RECOMMENDED BY MANJESWARAM MLA EXHIBIT P4 TRUECOPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATE 29.09.2023 PASSED BY THE MANGALPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.01.2024 BY SECRETARY OF MANGALPADI TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IT'S ENCLOSURE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.
LSGD/JD/KSD/326/2023-A3(1) DATED
11.01.2024 SENT BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESONDENT WITHOUT IT'S ENCLOSURE
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 41
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40036/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.12.2015 IN WPC NO.32813/2015 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(GEN)
NO.877/2018/LSGD DATED 28.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1" RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2020 IN WPC NO.150/2020 OF THIS HON;BLE COURT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.GO(P) NO.36/2024/LSGD S.R.O NO.513/2024 DATED 14.06.2024 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1DATED 06.09.2024 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 42 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46567/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. G.O. (P).NO.140/15/LSGD DATED 25.04.2015 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER DATED 30.05.2015 FOR PROPOSED PERUMATHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P3 TRUECOPY OF JUDGMENTDATED 10.08.2015 PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO. 15524/2015 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 138/2020 DATED 12.02.2020 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXCERPT OF ANSWERS GIVEN BY HON'BLE MINISTER OF LSGD IN THE 19TH MEETING OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DATED 06.03.2020 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024 DATED 09.07.2024 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (FIXING OF STRENGTH) AMENDMENT RULES, 2024 DATED 01.09.2024 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1 DATED 06.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 5TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 6TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 7TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYA 2025:KER:23103 WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 43 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38014/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. G.O. (P).NO.140/15/LSGD DATED 25.04.2015 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 30.05.2015 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO OLAVANNA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 30.05.2015 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO PANTHEERANKAAV PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
15524/2015 DATED 10.08.2015 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 138/2020 DATED 12.02.2020 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXCERPT OF ANSWERS GIVEN BY HON'BLE MINISTER OF LSGD IN THE 19TH MEETING OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DATED 06.03.2020 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024 DATED 09.07.2024 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (FIXING OF STRENGTH) AMENDMENT RULES, 2024 DATED 01.09.2024 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1 DATED 06.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE POPULATION DATA OF PANCHAYATS IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ALONG WITH THE NUMBER OF WARDS FIXED ON THE BASIS OF POPULATION.