T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashThe first petitioner is the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Development) of Manjeswaram Block Panchayat and is a voter in Ward No. XII of Kumbala Grama Panchayat. The second petitioner is a member of Kumbala Grama Panchayat.
2. In Kasaragod District, there were four Block Panchayats. The Government proposed to reorganise the same into six Block Panchayats as per Ext.P1 notification. The six Block Panchayats thus proposed, are Manjeswaram, Karadukka, Parappa, Neeleswaram, Kanhangadu and Kasaragode, out of which, Karadukka and Parappa are the two new Block Panchayats.
3. The dispute herein is with regard to the inclusion of Kumbala Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod Block Panchayat. It is one of the panchayats which was included in the Manjeswaram Block Panchayat.
4. By Ext.P2, the Kumbala Grama Panchayat objected to the proposal and wanted retention in Manjeswaram Block Panchayat itself. The Manjeswaram Block Panchayat Committee also passed Ext.P3 resolution to retain it in Manjeswaram Block Panchayat and to include Enmakaje Grama Panchayat with Karadukka Block Panchayat. The final notification has been published as per Ext.P4 wherein, as far as Kumbala Grama Panchayat is concerned, it is included in Kasaragode Block Panchayat itself which is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. Mainly it is contended that the geographical features were not considered by the Government while reorganising Kasaragode Block Panchayat. It is stated that Kumbala Grama Panchayat is very close to the headquarters of Manjeswaram Block Panchayat. The major Government offices were also in Manjeswaram.
6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit and a statement has been filed by the third respondent supporting the case of the petitioner. The Government in the counter affidavit, has stated that geographical convenience was considered for reorganisation.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no rational basis for reorganisation. It was submitted that Enmakaje Panchayat is still retained in Manjeswaram Block Panchayat, which is lying far away. It is pointed out that Kumbala Grama Panchayat ought to have been retained in Manjeswaram Block Panchayat, because of the geographical features. It is further pointed out that the exclusion from Manjeswaram Block Panchayat will result in denial of benefits to the general public and the execution of the projects will also be delayed.
8. The third respondent in their statement submits that ever since the Block Panchayats were constituted, the third respondent is part of Manjeswaram Block Panchayat. There is proper co-ordination between the existing Block Panchayat and the grama panchayat. It is further pointed out that the office of the Asst. Director, Agricultural Department is situated in the third respondent Panchayat and a reconstitution will only cause inconvenience to the people. The ongoing programmes will not be able to be executed properly.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further emphasises the fact that there had not been any proper consultation with the Block Panchayat and the grama panchayat concerned.
10. In W.P.(C) No. 21166/2010 and connected cases, this Court has considered the question as to the sufficiency of the consultation. True, that when consultation is initiated, there should be exchange of views and the finalisation of the proposals will be only after assessing the various aspects projected. Herein, apart from Ext.P1, nothing has been communicated to the panchayats, obviously. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no effective consultation.
11. Learned Govt. Pleader submitted that the views of the panchayats were considered. To consider the veracity of the objections, a reference can be made to Exts.P2 and P3. As per Ext.P2, the Kumbala Grama Panchayat in its meeting, objected to the reorganisation on the ground that the Kumbala Grama Panchayat is lying near to the headquarters of Manjeswaram Block Panchaya, but the details are not evident. They have also mentioned about the existence of certain offices within Kumbala Grama Panchayat. Apart from the same, no other serious objections have been pointed out in Ext.P2. How far the Kasaragode Block Panchayat or its headquarters will be away from Kumbala Grama Panchayat and whether the residents of Kumbala Grama Panchayat will find any practical difficulty to reach the headquarters of the new Block panchayat, have not been highlighted in Ext.P2. The same is the case in Ext.P3 resolution also. Therein, they merely wanted retention of Kumbala Grama Panchayat in Manjeswaram Block Panchayat. Therefore, even if the Government had to consider the views of Kumbala Grama Panchayat and Manjeswaram Block Panchayat, according to me, the details on which the consultation process have to be continued further, are not evident from Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. They have only raised their objections before the finalisation. There is no allegation of any lack of scientific or rational basis for the reorganisation. Therefore, the argument regarding sufficiency of consultation has to fail in the absence of any proper and effective reply by the panchayats concerned and by the petitioners also.
12. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is explained that the views of the panchayats were considered. Learned Govt. Pleader, on specific instructions, also submitted that Kumbala Grama Panchayat is near to the headquarters of Kasaragode Block Panchayat than Manjeswaram and the distance will be 12 and 20 kms. respectively. It is therefore pointed out that the same will be nearer to Kasaragode Block Panchayat.
13. In that view of the matter, as the petitioners or the respective panchayats have not highlighted any material aspects for consideration for the Government to proceed with the consultation process, I am of the view that the order passed by the Government does not suffer from any illegality.
14. Apart from that, this is a case where two new Block Panchayats have been formed in Kasaragode District which necessarily requires reorganisation of the existing Block Panchayat. Therefore, evidently the Government had to consider various aspects also including the suggestions and objections from various different Panchayats. Learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that the writ petition is highly belated. The final notification was published on 2.7.2010 and the writ petition is filed only on 28.7.2010. It is pointed out that the delimitation process has attained a finality and the final notification with regard to the delimitation of wards of the respective Block Panchayats is ready and will be published shortly. It is therefore submitted that no interference is called for. I find force in the above submission also.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
