Kerala High Court
K.K.Balan vs The Chairman(State Election ... on 7 September, 2010
Bench: J.Chelameswar, P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1082 of 2010()
1. K.K.BALAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN(STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONR)
... Respondent
2. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
6. THE VELOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VADAKARA.
7. SHRI HAFSATH, CHILD DEVELOPMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC,DELIMITATIO
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.A.No.1082 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ravindran, J.
The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18524 of 2010. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the second respondent, the State Delimitation Commission, to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the appellant before finalising the amended draft delimitation proposal. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
2. The appellant is a resident of Velom Grama Panchayat. The Velom Grama Panchayat was divided into 16 wards during the last election to the local bodies. The number of wards were refixed as 17 in Ext.P2 draft delimitation proposal submitted by the Secretary of Velom Grama Panchayat to the State Delimitation Commission in connection with the proposed elections to the local bodies. Aggrieved by the said proposal, the petitioner and others filed objections and a hearing was W.A.No.1082 of 2010 2 conducted on 10.3.2010. The State Delimitation Commission thereafter passed Ext.P3 order dated 15.5.2010 whereby certain changes in Ext.P2 were directed to be made and the Secretary of the Velom Grama Panchayat was directed to submit the final delimitation proposal with a sketch showing the boundaries of the wards through the District Collector before 9.6.2010. The Delimitation Commission also directed the Secretary to ensure that no existing building is left out and also to ensure that no building is included in more than one constituency. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the Secretary of Velom Grama Panchayat submitted Ext.P5 final delimitation proposal in respect of the 17 wards of Velom Grama Panchayat. The appellant thereupon submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 8.6.2010 raising various contentions. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a direction to the State Delimitation Commission to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass final orders thereon before finalising the amended draft delimitation proposal. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Association of W.A.No.1082 of 2010 3 Resident of MHOW(Rom) and another v. The Delimitation Commission of India (2009 (5) SCC 404) the learned single judge held that the Commission is not under any obligation to hear the parties at different stages and that the reliefs prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted. The learned single Judge however observed that the objections raised by the appellant as regards the number of residential houses would at best call for a rectification and that can be achieved by moving the competent authority under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. We heard Sri.K.Ramkumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the additional eighth respondent. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Ext.P3 order passed by the State Delimitation Commission on W.A.No.1082 of 2010 4 15.5.2010 discloses that after Ext.P2 draft delimitation proposal was submitted, objections were received and the objectors were heard on 10.3.2010. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that though the appellant was one among the objectors and had submitted Annexure-A objections dated 8.1.2010, wherein the only objection raised by him was as regards the constituencies reserved for women candidates and scheduled castes/scheduled tribe candidates, he did not participate in the hearing held on 10.3.2010 by the State Delimitation Commission. Annexure-B produced by the eighth respondent clarifies the said position. After the objections were considered on 10.3.2010, the State Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 order directing certain modifications to be carried out in Ext.P2. Accordingly, the Secretary of Velom Grama Panchayat submitted Ext.P5 final delimitation report on 7.6.2010. That proposal was finalised with certain modifications by Annexure-C order passed on 10.6.2010 by the State Delimitation Commission. It was at that stage that the appellant W.A.No.1082 of 2010 5 filed Ext.P4 representation pointing out that the guidelines evidenced by Ext.P1 were not followed while finalising the delimitation proposal and that there are various other infirmities in the final delimitation proposal. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed on 14.6.2010 seeking a direction to the State Delimitation Commission to consider the objections raised by the appellant in Ext.P4 before finalising the delimitation proposal.
4. Before the learned single Judge, the main contention raised was that 121 houses have been left out in Ext.P5 final delimitation report, as a result of which the inhabitants of the said 121 houses will be denied the right to vote. The learned single Judge repelled the said contention holding that the delimitation commission is not bound to hear the parties at different stages. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Association of Resident of MHOW(Rom) and another v. The Delimitation Commission of India (2009 (5) SCC 404), it was held that the Commission is not under any legal or constitutional obligation to go on issuing revised W.A.No.1082 of 2010 6 proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. In our considered opinion, the finding of the learned single Judge that the appellant cannot therefore be permitted to raise objections to Ext.P5 proposal after the Delimitation Commission conducted a hearing and passed Ext.P3 order on 15.5.2010 directing certain modifications to Ext.P2 draft proposal does not merit interference. It is clear from the decision of the Apex Court that the State Delimitation Commission is not under any legal or constitutional obligation to issue revised proposals as and when objections and suggestions are received by it. The pleadings in the instant case disclose that after the hearing held on 10.3.2010 in which the appellant did not participate, the State Delimitation Commission had issued Ext.P3 order directing certain modifications to Ext.P2 draft delimitation proposal. The appellant does not challenge Ext.P3. The Secretary of the Velom Grama Panchayat gave effect to Ext.P3 and submitted the final delimitation report. It was at that stage that the appellant W.A.No.1082 of 2010 7 came forward with Ext.P4 representation objecting to the various proposals in Ext.P5. In our opinion, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the said objections cannot be considered.
5. The only objection raised by the appellant to Ext.P2 was as regards the constituencies which are to be reserved for women candidates and scheduled castes/scheduled tribe candidates. The appellant did not however appear for the hearing on 10.3.2010. It was after considering the various objections to Ext.P2 that the State Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 order directing certain modifications to Ext.P2. The Secretary of the Velom Grama Panchayat carried out the said modifications and submitted Ext.P5 final delimitation report and that proposal was also accepted subject to minor modifications as can be seen from Annexure-C order dated 10.6.2010. By that order, the Wards 12 and 13 were renumbered as 13 and 12. In our considered opinion, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Association of Resident of MHOW(Rom) and another v. W.A.No.1082 of 2010 8 The Delimitation Commission of India (2009 (5) SCC 404), the learned single Judge was perfectly right in holding that the relief prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted.
We therefore find no grounds to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.
nj.