The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the bifurcation of Taliparamba Municipality into Taliparamba and Andoor municipalities. The Court held the exercise of power was legislative in character, no consultation was mandated by law, and the action did not violate any constitutional provisions. The petitioners' contentions were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/14TH SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 14948 of 2015 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. K. MURALEEDHARAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. K.V. NARAYANAN, CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE FOR WELFARE, TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.) SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.NICHOLAS JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
3. THE TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 501.
4. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
5. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CWC BUILDING, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 14948 of 2015 (P)
**** ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED**
6. MAHAMOOD ALLAMKULAM, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 45 YEARS, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR OF THE THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TOM K.THOMAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC R6 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2015 ALONG WITH WPC. 16493/2015, THE COURT ON 05-08-2015, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 14948 of 2015 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.03.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)NO.148/2015 DATED 30.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Ms v/
“C.R”
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in these writ petitions is G.O.(P) Nos. 145/2015 and 148/2015 issued by the Local Self Government Department dated 30.4.2015 by which the Municipality of Taliparamba has been divided into the municipalities of Taliparamba and Andoor.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-2-
Taliparamba municipality and Andoor municipality in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 (2) (c) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. According to them, the said action is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act and Constitution and are vitiated by extraneous consideration and political motivation.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-3-
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015 and Mr. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16493 of 2015. I have also heard Sri.K.P. Dhandapani, the learned Advocate General and Sri.Tom K. Thomas, the learned Special Government Pleader to AG. I have also heard Mr.S. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent who ably assisted by Mr.Abhilash K.N in W.P.(C) No.14948 of 2015 and Mr.Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission as well as the Kerala State Delimitation Commission, who rendered proper assistance by placing various judicial pronouncements in the realm.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
Panchayath Raj Act. It was held by this Court that for a meaningful consultation with the panchayath, they are to be told as to the reasons which prompted the government to have such proposal. It is crucial to note that the aforesaid decision was rendered in the contest of considering a case relating to the Panchayath Raj Act. Section 4 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that the Government may, after consultation with the panchayath, pass such orders as they deem fit as to the disposal of any part of the property vested in the village/ panchayath which has ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any village or group of villages and the discharge of the liabilities of the village panchayath relating to such property or arising from such village including all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. However, Section 4 of the Municipality Act, does not contemplate any consultation with the local authority before exercising the power under Section 4(2) of the Act unlike in the Panchayath Raj Act, which mandates the consideration of the opinions and the suggestions of the Village
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-5-
Panchayath, Town Panchayath or Municipal Corporation in the process of bifurcation. The legislature has empowered the Government to change geographical pattern of the municipality without consulting the existing council of the municipality. However, if the government wants to change the name of the municipality, a consultation with the municipality is essential. While the Panchayath Raj Act mandates the Government to have consultation with the panchayath, what is provided by the Municipality Act is only a consideration of the objections by the concerned village/panchayath.
and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and
others [AIR 1990 SC 261] had set out the scope of interference by the court in a notification issued under the provisions of the Municipalities Act regarding the delinking of the areas of the local government institution. It was observed that the court cannot lay down norms for the exercise of that power. A similar view was expressed in Thulsipur Sugar
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-6-
Company Ltd v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur
[AIR 1980 SCC 882] wherein it was observed that the power of the State Government under the Municipality Act is legislative in character. This Court in Sreekala and others v. State of
Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 385] relying on the decision of State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh [ AIR 2002 SC 533] , observed that the territorial area of a Grama Sabha and thereafter establishing a Grama Sabha for that area is an act legislative in character in the context of the provisions of the Act and it is not subjected to the rule of natural justice. There cannot be any doubt regarding the proposition that the exercise of power under Article 243 Q read with Section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act is legislative in character. A legislation can only be challenged only on the ground of legislative incompetence, violation of fundamental rights and violation of any other provisions of the Constitution.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-7-
No.14948 of 2015, it is stated that the object of the same was to provide infrastructure facility to the municipalities since population and income of the municipalities have gone up during recent years. It is stated in Ext.P2 that due to the speedy urbanization, it is not possible to give proper concentration on the development of public health and urban planning. It is further stated that regarding these matters, several municipal councils took decisions and requested to upgrade the municipalities and to create new categories for the better functioning of the municipalities. In fact, Ext.P2 was issued by the Government on the basis of the request of the municipalities to provide additional infrastructure and additional financial burden would be the sole responsibility of the municipalities. As Ext.P2 is an arrangement between the State and Municipalities, it has no effect up on Section 4 (2) of the Municipalities Act.
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
representation dated 4.2.2015 submitted by one Valsan, who
is the secretary of the Yukti Sahrudaya Vedi and Grandhalayam on the basis of which State of Kerala conducted a public hearing on 14.3.2015, as evident from Ext. R7(b). It is evident from Exts. R7(c) and R7(d) that several notices were issued to the persons who submitted representations pursuant to the first notification. It was pointed out that the present Andoor area consist of Government College of Engineering, Ayurveda Medical College, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Doordarshan Kendram, Kannur University, Arts College, Gems International School etc. It is pointed out that Taliparamba
which is on the northern side of the Municipal area and the people residing on the southern side of the municipality will have to travel around 25 kms. to reach head office. Previously Taliparamba Municipality has filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.16997 of 2005 before this Court challenging the delinking of Andoor area from municipality, as evident from Ext. R7(e). In that case, the Municipal Council produced a list of industrial,
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
-9-
commercial and non-commercial establishment in Andoor area. In that writ petition, the Taliparamba Municipal Council had submitted before this Court that Andoor area is an industrially developed area which generates income more than 1.52 crores. The true copy of the financial statement issued by the Secretary, Thaliparamba Municipality is produced as Ext. R7 (g).
record that the division of the existing municipality into two municipalities encourages decentralisation of powers, which
W.P.(C) Nos.14948 & 16493 of 2015
would pave way to the growth of both municipalities, this Court is of the view that none of the residents in the locality can have a grievance, on account of this bifurcation. There is no violation of the provisions of either the State or the Constitution also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely no ground for interference in the bifurcation now effected.
In the result, both writ petitions fail and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE
Scl.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Government acted illegally and arbitrarily in bifurcating the Taliparamba Municipality under Section 4(2)(c) of the Kerala Municipalities Act without consulting the existing council.
Whether the exercise of power by the State under Article 243 Q read with Section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act is legislative in character and not subject to the rule of natural justice.
Whether the bifurcation of the Taliparamba Municipality violates the provisions of the State Act or the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saji Joseph v. State of KeralaExplained¶69
Saji Joseph v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 672]
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, MaharashtraDistinguished¶75
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra [AIR 1990 SC 261] · Who else cites this
Thulsipur Sugar Company Ltd v. The Notified Area Committee, TulsipurApplied¶77
Thulsipur Sugar Company Ltd v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur [AIR 1980 SCC 882] · Who else cites this
Sreekala and others v. State of KeralaRelied on¶81
Sreekala and others v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KHC 385]
State of Punjab v. Tehal SinghRelied on¶82
State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh [AIR 2002 SC 533] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. MURALEEDHARAN
K.V. NARAYANAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA
STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, KERALA
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
