M. Ramachandran, J.@mdashThe writ petition is filed by a resident of Puramattom Grama Panchayat, challenging Ext.P-10 order of the Kerala State Delimitation Commission dated 5-8-2005. Thereby the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat had been directed that taking notice of the observations made therein, appropriate regularisation had to be done, so as to include certain houses in the proposed Constituency No. 2 and streamline the number of voters. Final delimitation list so prepared had to be presented for approval of the Commission. The Petitioner pointed out that earlier on 25-7-2005 there had been a direction issued by the Delimitation Committee to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for making appropriate changes on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, whereby final list of delimitation was to be forwarded to the Commission for approval, it had been duly carried out, and a repetition was unauthorised, and practically resulted in a review of the earlier orders and therefore suffered from a jurisdictional error.
2. The principal contention was that after passing Ext. P-7 order, the Delimitation Commission had become functus officio and could not have further passed orders in the nature of Ext. P-10, as it was not a procedure authorised by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'').
3. Noticing the contention of the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Delimitation Commission, that Ext. P-7 was not a final order, and Ext. P-10 had been issued validly, a learned Single Judge had expressed an opinion that an authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench was desirable. There was necessity for expeditious disposal of the case. Taking notice of the urgency as above expressed, the matter was posted for final hearing.
4. We had heard Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas, counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and Sri Murali Purushothaman, counsel for Respondents 2 and 3. Sri M.V. S. Nampoothiry had appeared on behalf of one voter of the Panchayat and had requested that he may also be heard in the matter.
5. The parties had agreed that the question, as stood referred, if decided, would also effectively dispose of the contentions in the writ petition as well. We find the above course acceptable.
6. The Petitioner points out that Puramattom Grama Panchayat had 10 wards as on 15-6-2005. The State Election Commission had expressed an opinion and also decided that in view of the census report of the year 2001, the Panchayat was to consist of 12 wards. Such decision had been taken in respect of innumerable Panchayats. A draft delimitation schedule was published on 5-5-2005. As per the mandate of law, objections were invited to be submitted against the proposal. Objections from various quarters had come about the inclusion, non inclusion and boundaries of the proposed wards. The District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta had been notified as the Enquiry Officer for the purpose. Petitioner submits that after affording a personal hearing, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report which indicated that the objections raised by the Petitioner were valid. In support of his submissions, Ext. P-5 proceedings have been made available, which is termed as a revised report. For the purpose of determining this case, the details of the objections may not be necessary to be considered as such as the manner of exercise of powers alone is now under examination. A copy of the report dated 15-7-2005, addressed to the District Collector, is produced as Ext. P-6.
7. Based on the report, it is stated that the Delimitation Commission had conducted a personal hearing, and passed an order on 25-7-2005 (Ext. P-7). According to the Petitioner, this showed that the report of the Enquiry Officer had been fully accepted and this was authority for the District Collector to bring about the correction. The final delimitation report was to be submitted to the Commission by 3-8-2005. The Petitioner points out that as per the orders of the Delimitation Commission dated 16-7-2005, appropriate changes have been brought in by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and a final delimitation report had been prepared. According to him, after such exercises and formalities had come on record, the steps taken by the Delimitation Commission, to tinker with the report and a further direction issued to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was clearly unauthorised. The direction as above, contained in Ext. P-10, is not legal, and it is submitted that there were extraneous pressures applied and the report of the Enquiry Officer, which was entitled to sanctity, had been thrown to the gutter. The report was made after a formal hearing and it has been discarded in a most undemocratic manner. Further contention was that the steps are in violation of principles of natural justice. Section 10 of the Act did not authorise such a procedure.
8. Therefore, the only issue is as to whether Ext. P-7 was to be considered as a final order, as postulated by the section, or whether it could have been subjected to modification, as had been done by Ext. P-10. The contention of the Delimitation Commission is that Ext. P-10 did not suffer from any vice and Ext. P-7 was to be considered only as a draft yet to be approved finally.
9. Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas contends that formerly there was a power of review reserved by the State Election Commission, but this had been held as unconstitutional. Therefore, me third Respondent had no jurisdiction for reversing the final order. It is followed by a submission that as far as Puramattom Grama Panchayat was concerned, Ext. P-7 became the final order and the Commission became functus officio after passing Ext. P-7. In view of Section 10(3) of the Act, finality had been attached to the order, which could not have been called in question before a court of law. It automatically settled for a position that the Commission also had no powers to vary the orders once passed. Proceedings without hearing the affected persons were violative of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that per se extraneous matters appear to have been taken into consideration and being unreasonable and illegal, the order is liable to be set aside.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to a time table, which had been proclaimed as to be followed by the Delimitation Committee. The Panchayat Secretaries were given training during the second week of April, 2005 as a prelude. It was mandatory that the elections had to be held before 1st of October, 2005. Otherwise, the Committees would have to be dissolved and Administrators would have to take charge. Reports were to be submitted by the Panchayat Secretaries on the delimitation process about the draft suggestions before 30-4-2005 and the date of draft publication was 5-5-2005. The last date for receipt of objections had been notified as 15-5-2005. Enquiry and thereafter, submission of enquiry report had to be completed by 30th of May, 2005. Final orders after hearing were to come by 30-6-2005. Therefore, it had been submitted that the Delimitation Commission could not take notice of any objection after 15-5-2005, presented in any manner.
11. A statement has been filed, on behalf of the Commission, by the standing counsel. It is stated that Section 10 of the Act has been amended with effect from 10-1-2005. The Kerala Local Authorities (Delimitation Commission) Rules, 2005 thereafter had been framed and a Commission had been duly constituted under the chairmanship of the State Election Commission. Referring to the time table, it is disclosed that although the last date of receiving objections and suggestions was 15-5-2005, the date of consideration of the objections had been rescheduled from 30-6-2005 to 8-8-2005. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as entertainment of a writ petition may stall election to local bodies, which is impermissible. It is pointed out that in respect of Puramattom Panchayat, on the basis of objections received, a re-enquiry was ordered and Ext. P-7 was an intimation, by way of an order, directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to submit a final delimitation schedule on the basis of the enquiry report. Thereafter, a petition had come to be received pointing out that the delimitation, as contained in Ext. P-7, if accepted, would be violative of the prescription regarding the strength of voters, and thereupon the Commission had called for the records and summoned the Enquiry Officers as also the Secretary of the Panchayat so as to ascertain their views. It was noticed that the proposal would have been against the provisions of the first proviso to Section 10(1)(a) of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission. It was in these circumstances that Ext. P-10 order was issued. Ext. P-7 was not the final order of delimitation and even Ext. P-10 had no such status.
12. The standing counsel further pointed out that the Commission did not have any extraneous reason or purpose to be secured by issuing Ext. P-10, as alleged. The mammoth work that had to be undertaken could not have gone unnoticed. The Director of Panchayats, as required by Section 6 of the Act, by 31 -3-2005 fixed the strength of the Panchayats, namely the wards which they were to contain as constituencies. As the tenure of the members was to expire by 1-10-2005, what was to be followed was in fact a race against time. The programme encompassed 53 Municipalities, 5 Corporations, 152 Block Panchayats, 14 District Panchayats and 999 Panchayats. A time frame had been fixed and 8th of August, 2005 was the final date for passing of orders. About 10,000 objections had been received to be independently considered within a brief period. In general, the facts and reports presented by the authorised officers were duly taken notice of According to him, the allegation that issuance of Ext. P-10 was a sacrilege, arose from a misconception of the procedure. In fact, Ext. P-7 as also Ext. P-10 were not final, as a final order had come to be passed only on 8-8-2005, and well within the stipulated time schedule.
13. We do not think it is necessary to take notice of the petition filed by a third party, as he owns up the paternity of the application, which had resulted in Ext. P-10 order. The Commission had made available the full files, and we are satisfied that there has not been any objectionable dealings, and the anxiety was to see that the proposals conform with the basic concepts. An objection had come from him initially within the specified time and had informed the Enquiry Officer of the irregularity that may result in the proposed changes. Finding that this has escaped his notice, the matter was brought to the attention of the Delimitation Commission. The application could not be considered as a fresh petition filed beyond the prescribed date. However, we do not think it is necessary to examine the further submissions, as it may not be relevant beyond this position. I.A. No. 12417 of 2005 will stand dismissed.
14. Section 10 of the Act had been amended by Act 3 of 2005. Government had been given power thereby to constitute a Delimitation Commission. By Sub-section 10(2), the Delimitation Commission was to publish the proposals of the Commission, and invite objections with respect to the proposals before a date specified in the notice. They were to consider all objections and suggestions before the dates specified and were to delimit the constituencies. As pointed by the State Election Commission, these were general powers since the ultimate project was delimitation of the constituencies.
15. Without referring to technicalities, we may therefore examine as to whether Ext. P-7 was an order as coming within the purview of Section 10(2) of the Act. Ext. P-7 requires the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to pass orders in conformity with the re-enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, and this had to be presented for approval of the Commission. This could not have been considered as a final order. Likewise, Ext. P-10 dated 5-8-2005 also does not appear to be an order as envisaged by the section, as there was only an instruction for complying with the procedural requirements. When the two documents specifically refer to submission of the list for approval of the Delimitation Commission, it is difficult to accept the contention of the Petitioner that Ext. P-7 was a final order. When we notice that ultimately the Delimitation Commission was to delimit the constituencies, we have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that Ext. P-7 or Ext. P-10 do not merit to be treated as orders, as passed u/s 10(2)(d) of the Act.
16. It was also not conceivable that the Delimitation Commission was obliged to accept the report of the officers, who were deputed and authorised for fact finding enquiry, nor any deviation there from was permissible. On materials received, it would have been possible for them to come to a final decision in their discretion. Taking notice of the magnitude of the work expected of them, it might not have been possible to insist that in every such matters, further individual hearing at the next stage also was a strict requirement. The statute does not provide for this procedure. We are not impressed by the argument that there was violation of principles of natural justice.
17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner had adverted to a few decisions, which according to him, would have been relevant, some of them being
However, in view of the conclusion that has been arrived at by us, we do not think it is necessary to advert to the principles that had been discussed there.
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
