Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 10 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 10A in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Election Commission Of India vs Mohd. Abdul Ghani And Ors on 1 November, 1995
14. Election Commission of India v. Mohd. Abdul Ghani and
others {(1995) 6 SCC 721} concerned a case where the villages falling
within one district which formed part of a constituency mentioned in the
delimitation order later forming part of territorial division of another
district, due to change in course of river. It was held that the power of
Election Commission does not extend to alternation of boundaries or area or
extent of any constituency shown in the delimitation order. Therein, the
matter was considered in the light of Section 9(1)(b) of the Representation
of the People Act, 1950 and Section 11(1)(b) of the Delimitation Act, 1972.
Their Lordships held thus in para 10:
Section 9 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Association Of Res.Of Mhow (Rom) & Anr vs Delimitation Commn.Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2009
16. Another important decision is that of the Apex Court in
Association of Residents of MHOW (Rom) and another v. Delimitation
Commission of India and others {(2009) 5 SCC 404}. Therein, the
power of the Commission to depart from the original proposal and the
factors that can be considered by the Commission before making final
delimitation order, came up for consideration. It was argued that whenever
the Commission wants to have a change of the draft proposal before the
final delimitation order is notified, then again a fresh opportunity should be
given to submit objections, etc. While considering the scope and width of
the power of the Delimitation Commission, it was held thus in paragraphs
25 and 26:
Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010
Relying upon the principles, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the scheme for delimitation emphasises the aspect of finality once the
objections and suggestions are considered and an order is passed by the
Commission and thereafter the only power is to correct errors and mistakes
under Section 11 of the Act. The learned counsel for the Commission
submitted that here the final order delimiting the ward is yet to be published
in the Gazette and hence the situation herein is not similar to the points
considered in Babu's case (supra).
V. Kunhabdulla And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 3 August, 2000
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Commission
wpc 18801 & 21098
of 2010 3
has no power to receive any fresh objection after the last date fixed for
receipt of objections, in the light of the general guidelines issued by the
Commission itself and Section 10(2) of the Act. It is evident that they have
received a fresh objection/suggestion on 8.6.2010, long after Ext.P8 order
dated 30.4.2010 was issued. Without anything more, on the next day itself,
i.e. Ext.P9 order has been passed cancelling the direction in Ext.P8. If at
all there is any power to the Commission, it is only to correct a printing
mistake or error arising from an inadvertent slip or omission under Section
11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is also submitted that the
Commission has acted with undue haste in passing Ext.P9. Reliance is
placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Election Commission of
India v. Mohd. Abdul Ghani and others {(1995) 6 SCC 721}, that of a
Division Bench of this Court in Kunhabdulla and others v. State of
Kerala and others (2000 (2) KLJ 709), another decision of this Court in
Chirayinkeezhu A. Babu v. Delimitation Commission and others (2010
(2) KLT 957 = 2010 (1) KHC 953) and that of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the decision reported in Association of the Resident of MHOW
v. Delimitation Commission of India (AIR 2008 MP 236).
1