Disposed

Geetha Ajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2015WP(C)/4260/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bifurcation of Elakkunnappuzha Panchayat to address population imbalance. Court held that Delimitation Commission cannot act before government alters strength under Section 6. Directed State to consider grievance before 2020 elections.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent State to consider petitioner's grievance regarding panchayat bifurcation before the general election for local bodies in the year 2020.

Geetha Ajith Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4260 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

GEETHA AJITH, SECRETARY, 'FEDERATION OF RESIDENT'S MURIKKUMPADOM (FORM), KOMATH BUILDINGS, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKAL POST, KOCHI-682 508.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (EM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER,

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 -001.

¶14

3. STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, OBSERVATORY LANE, MUSEUM POST,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

4. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

¶18

CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶19

5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

¶20

CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶21

6. ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶22

MALIPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM-682 511,

¶23

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶25

CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 030.

¶26

R1,R4,R5 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN PULIKAPARAMBIL R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, S.C R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Msd.

¶29

WP(C).No. 4260 of 2015 (F)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶32

EXT P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 12-11-2014. EXT P1(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P1. EXT P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NUMBER 1 DECISION REACHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DATED 28-11-2014. EXT P2(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P2. EXT P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT P3(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P3.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶34

EXT.R6(1): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5/9972/2014 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ELANKUNNAPUZHA PANCHAYATH, DATED 28.11.2014.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶39

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.4260 of 2015

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2015

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner is the secretary of major resident's association,

¶43

within the limits of 6^th respondent panchayat. The 6^th respondent consists of an area of two villages and a total population of around 60000 and more is now governed by the 6^th respondent through 23 wards. The maximum limit of population within the panchayat is 40000 and the maximum wards that can be divisioned is 23. When it comes to 6^th respondent, there should be 17 more wards to meet the needs of common man. The problem of people within the Puthuvuppu village is left isolated and unsolved; it is alleged.

¶44

As per Ext.P1, the Government had made a call through respondents 5 and 6 inviting request for bifurcation of panchayats and 6^th respondent had recommended the same through Ext.P2. In the draft list of new panchayat declared by the 1^st respondent

¶45

WP(C)4260/15 -:2:-

¶46

Government's cabinet, the name of the 6^th respondent panchayat is seen left out. When objection is sought for, the petitioner had served Ext.P3 which is now seen evaded without any reason. Therefore, the petitioner has no other go, at this stage, other than to approach this Court. It is with this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for the respondent panchayat and the learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent Delimitation Commission.

¶48

The State Delimitation Commission has filed a detailed statement stating that in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Delimitation Commission could delimit the constituencies only after the Government fixes/alters the strength of a panchayat, the Government have not so far altered the strength of the 6^th respondent after the publication of 2011 census figures. The strength of the 6^th respondent was last fixed by the Director of

¶49

WP(C)4260/15 -:3:-

¶50

Panchayats in exercise of powers under Section 6 as per notification dated 20.11.2009. As per the said proceedings, the strength of the 6^th respondent is fixed as 23 and is not hitherto altered or re-fixed. On

¶51

the basis of the said notification, the constituency of the 6^th respondent panchayat has been delimited.

¶52

As the Government have not hitherto altered or re-fixed the strength of the 6^th respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 6, the State Delimitation Commission cannot delimit the constituencies of the 6^th respondent panchayat in exercise of the powers under Section 10.

¶53

Shri Murali Purushothaman, the learned standing counsel for the commission further submitted that the term of the present municipalities, municipal corporations and panchayats are due to expire on 31.10.2015 and as per the Constitutional mandate under Article 243-E and 243-U, the elections to these Local Self Government Institutions have to be conducted before the expiry of

¶54

-:4:-

¶55

WP(C)4260/15

¶56

the term and the new members would have to be posted by 1.11.2015.

¶57

As it is too late to direct the Government to consider the request of the petitioner for bifurcation, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent State to consider the grievance of the petitioner before the next general election for the local bodies to be held in the year 2020.

¶58

sd/-

¶59

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶60

krj

Geetha Ajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Ajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.T.Madhavikutty Vs Vinod Kumar

Noufiya Vs the Village Officer

Holy Grace Academy of Management Studies Vs University of Calicut

Manju Mohan Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Seema Padmarajan Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

A.M.Ummer Vs State of Kerala