Kerala High Court
Vinod T vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7668 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 VINOD T.,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. THANKAPPAN, RAJAPURAM, MANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA,
THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690515
2 MANOJ S.,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, NEYSSERIL PUTHUVAL, ARATTUPUZHA EAST,
CHINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY, CHINGOLI, ALAPPUZHA, PIN
- 690532
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.
VIVEK A.V.
AMMU M.
ARUN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION
OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688001
4 ARATTUPUZHA GRAM PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690535
2025:KER:30478
WP(C)No. 7668/2025 2
5 THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DELIMITATION
COMMISSION, CORPORATION BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 REGISTRAR GENERAL AND CENSUS COMMISSIONER,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NDCC
BUILDING-II, JAISINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA
P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
K.SUDHINKUMAR
SABU PULLAN
GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
BHARATH MOHAN
K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SMT. K.R.DEEPA, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.03.2025, THE COURT ON 09.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30478
WP(C)No. 7668/2025 3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners, who
are the residents of the Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat, the 4 th
respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioners pertains to
the guidelines framed by the 5 th respondent, the Delimitation
Commission, as evidenced by Ext.P1, to the extent it
contemplated a method based on the number of households in
the Panchayat, for determining the inhabitant population for the
purpose of carrying out the delimitation of wards in the
Municipality.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
As per the notification issued by the 1 st respondent on
6.9.2024, the total number of wards in the 4 th respondent
Panchayat was increased to 19 from 18. Such a refixation was
necessitated consequent to the amendment made in Section
6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as per Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, wherein the
minimum and maximum number of wards in the Grama
2025:KER:30478
Panchayats were increased. Consequently, as per Ext.P3
notification, the 5th respondent Commission was formed under
Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to carry out the
delimitation exercise. Exhibit P1 is the set of guidelines
published by the 5th respondent- Commission, which are to be
followed while carrying out the delimitation exercise in the
State. In Ext.P1, in order to distribute the inhabitant population
among the wards in equal proportion, it was contemplated that
the average population per household should be calculated by
dividing the total population of the Panchayat as per 2011
census by the total number of households in the panchayat as
on 01.10.2024, as per the assessment register. Thereafter, the
population of the proposed constituency should be calculated by
multiplying the average number of households in the proposed
constituency by the average household population. According to
the petitioners, such a procedure is not proper as the 5 th
respondent Commission is not competent to follow the said
procedure, in view of the fact that, as per Section 6(1) of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the total number of seats in a village
2025:KER:30478
panchayat has to be determined with reference to the
population of the territorial area of panchayat concerned. The
expression 'Population' is defined under Art.243(f) of the
Constitution of India, and it means the 'population' as
ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant
period has been published. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, the data collected from the last census alone could be
the basis of the delimitation and depending upon the average of
the households as existed in the assessment register of the
Panchayat is not proper. Apart from the above, several
discrepancies resulting from a calculation based on the number
of households were also pointed out. Such discrepancies include
the duplication of the households, the inclusion of permanently
uninhabited/abandoned households, which are still included in
the Assessment Register, etc. It was in those circumstances
that the petitioners filed this Writ Petition challenging the Ext.P1
guidelines and the consequential delimitation process that is
now in progress.
3. A detailed statement was submitted by the 5 th
2025:KER:30478
respondent-Delimitation Commission wherein, it was contended
that, in order to find out the inhabitant population and to
distribute it to each constituency in such a manner to ensure
that, each constituency consists of equal population as far as
practicable, this is the only available method. The obligation of
the 5th respondent Commission to ensure equal distribution of
population among the wards as mandated under Art.243-C of
the Constitution and also under section 6 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act was highlighted. It was averred that the 5 th
respondent-Commission, in its wisdom and through its
experience, devised the methodology prescribed in Ext.P1
guidelines, for calculating the average population in a
constituency and the same is found to be the most reasonable
and scientific method for achieving the mandate of Art.243-C of
the Constitution of India and also the statutory mandate of the
proviso to Section 10(1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
The methodology adopted by them is explained in paragraph 20
of the statement, which reads as follows:
"Therefore, in order to ensure aforesaid mandate, the average
population in a constituency is calculated by dividing the total
2025:KER:30478
population (as per 2011 Census) of the Panchayat by the total
number of constituencies in the Panchayat. Then, the population of
the proposed constituency is calculated by multiplying the average
number of households in the proposed constituency by the average
household population and the average household population is
calculated by dividing the total population of the Panchayat as per
2011 Census by the total number of households in the Panchayat as
on 01-10-2024 as per Panchayat Assessment Register. Thus, the
same ensures that almost all the households as per the Panchayat
Assessment Register are included within the constituencies in the
Panchayat and also that the population of each constituency of a
Panchayat shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the
Panchayat area."
4. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner to
the averments contained in the statement of the 5th respondent.
5. I have heard Sri. V.Sajith Kumar, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.R. Deepa, the learned
Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3, Sri.R. Bhaskara
Krishnan, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and Sri.
Deepulal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd and
5th respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition as
according to him, the stipulations in Ext.P1 guidelines for
2025:KER:30478
carrying out the delimitation exercise based on the number of
households in the Panchayat are erroneous and in contravention
to the Constitutional as well as the statutory mandates.
According to him, no other figures than those mentioned in the
last census conducted, could be used by the 5 th respondent
Commission for carrying out the exercise of delimitation. The
learned counsel, by referring to the District Census Handbook,
Alappuzha (Series 33 and Part XII-B) published by the
Directorate of Census Operations Kerala, as part of Census of
India, 2011, pointed out the discrepancies in depending upon
the number of households for the delimitation exercise. It was
pointed out that, by following the said procedure, the desired
results for maintaining equal distribution of population among
the wards as envisaged in Art. 243-C of the Constitution of India
cannot be achieved. As an illustration, the learned counsel for
the petitioner presented before this court the details of the
average population per household, calculated as per the 2011
Census data and the disparity between the wards of the
Municipality. It was pointed out that, as per the said calculation,
2025:KER:30478
the average population per household, varies from 3.55 to 4.57
in various wards, whereas the maximum difference permissible
is only 10% only, even according to Ext.P1 guidelines. The
learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governors
Secretariat and Others [(2020)6 SCC 548] and the
judgment of High Court of Gujarat in Rameshchandra
Ramanbhai Patel and Ors. v. Collector and Ors.
[Manu/GJ/0116/1978]. Reliance was also placed on a
decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Nazeer
A.P. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep [2023 KLT OnLine
1295]= [2023(2) KLJ 210].
7. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Pleader as
well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent
stoutly oppose the said contentions. The learned Standing
Counsel for the 5th respondent placed reliance upon a decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anugrah Narain
Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC
2025:KER:30478
303] and a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court
in Secretary to Government v. L.R.Arunadevi [2025 KHC
OnLine 317].
8. As far as the delimitation process now being
carried out by the 5th respondent-Commission is concerned, the
same was necessitated consequent to the amendment brought
in by the 1st respondent to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act. As per the said amendment, minimum and maximum
numbers of the wards in each Panchayats were increased by 14
and 24 respectively from 13 and 23 respectively. Consequent
amendment was also brought in the provisions of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength)Rules 1994 as well.
9. Accordingly, the number of wards in the 4 th
respondent Panchayat was refixed as 19 instead of 18, as per
the notification dated 6.9.2024. In such circumstances, the
delimitation process was initiated in the 4th respondent
panchayat.
10. To decide the issues involved in this case, an
examination of the Constitutional and statutory provisions is
2025:KER:30478
necessary. Art. 243(f) defines the 'population' which reads as
follows:
243(f): "Population" means the population as ascertained at the
last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been
published."
11. Art.243-C provides for the composition of
Panchayats and the same reads as follows:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a
State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the
composition of Panchayats:
Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial
area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in
such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as
practicable, be the same throughout the State.
(2) All the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons
chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the
Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat area
shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner
that the ratio between the population of each constituency and
the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be
the same throughout the Panchayat area.
(3) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the
representation -
(a) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the village
level, in the Panchayats at the intermediate level or, in
the case of a State not having Panchayats at the
intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level;
(b) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the
intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level;
2025:KER:30478
(c) of the members of the House of the People and the
members of the Legislative Assembly of the State
representing constituencies which comprise wholly or
partly a Panchayat area at a level other than the village
level, in such Panchayat;
(d) of the members of the Council of States and the
members of the Legislative Council of the State, where
they are registered as electors within -
(i) a Panchayat area at the intermediate level, in
Panchayat at the intermediate level;
(ii) a Panchayat area at the district level, in
Panchayat at the district level.
(4) The Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a
Panchayat whether or not chosen by direct election from
territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area shall have the
right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayats.
(5) The Chairperson of -
(a) a Panchayat at the village level shall be elected in
such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law,
provide; and
(b) a Panchayat at the intermediate level or district level
shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected
members thereof."
12. Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act which
deals with the strength of the Panchayat, reads as follows:
"6. Strength of Panchayats.-- (1) The total number of
seats in a Village Panchayat, a Block Panchayat and a
District Panchayat to be filled by direct election shall be
notified by the Government in accordance with the scale
specified in sub-section (3) with reference to the
population of the territorial area of the Panchayat
2025:KER:30478
concerned.
(2) The Government may after, publication of the
relevant figures of each census, by notification alter the
total number of seats in a Panchayat notified under sub-
section (1) subject to the scale specified in sub-section
(3).
(3) The number of seats to be notified under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) shall not,--
(a) in these case of Village Panchayat, be [less than
fourteen or more than twenty-four];
(b) in these case of a Block Panchayat, be [less than
fourteen or more than twenty-four];
(c) in these case of a District Panchayat, be [less than
seventeen or more than thirty-three]
Provided that the ratio between the population of the
territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the
number of seats in such Panchayats to be filled by
election shall, so far as practicable, be the same
throughout State.]
(4) The procedure of fixing the strength of a Panchayat
shall be such as may be prescribed.
13. The translated version of the relevant portion of
the Ext P1 guidelines, which is impugned in this case reads as
follows:
"3. Method of fixing the boundaries of a proposed
constituency by ascertaining the population.
(a) Grama Panchayat:
The boundaries of the constituencies should be as
natural as possible while delimiting the Grama Panchayat into
constituencies. Apart from the natural boundaries like river,
stream, lake, mountain etc., clearly identifiable man made
boundaries like road, footpath, minor roads, railway line can
also be considered as boundaries. The average population of a
constituency may be slightly increased or decreased to
maintain natural boundaries. However, such increase or
decrease shall in no case exceed ten percent of the average
population of a constituency of Panchayat. Facilities for
2025:KER:30478
travelling of voters, communication and setting up of polling
stations should also be considered.
The number of households (including unauthorized
buildings) as per the Assessment Registers as on 01.10.2024
in all constituencies of the Grama Panchayat should be
ascertained. The average population per household should be
calculated by dividing the total population of the panchayat
as per the 2011 census by the total number of households in
the Panchayat as on 01.10.2024 as per the Assessment
Register. The population of the proposed constituency should
be calculated by multiplying the average number of
households in the proposed constituency by the average
household population."
14. On examining the various provisions referred to
above, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the legal
proposition that the basis for delimitation of the wards is the
'population' as defined under Art. 243(f) of the Constitution of
India, i.e., figures in the last census conducted. Thus, the
crucial question that arises here is whether there would be any
deviation from the same while following the criteria stipulated
in Ext.P1 guidelines. The specific contention raised by the
learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent in this regard
is that, even while following the guidelines as referred to
above, the basic criteria remain the same, i.e., the population
2025:KER:30478
data from the last census, which was conducted in the year
2011. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the data of
the number of households as reflected in the Assessment
Register of the Panchayat was relied on, only to ensure that the
inhabitant population is equally distributed among the wards of
the Municipality in terms of the Constitutional mandate under
Art. 243-C.
15. On carefully going through the data available as
per the Census, it can be seen that, to distribute the population
as per the figures in the last census among the wards, some
methodology has to be adopted. In the District Census
Handbook published as part of the 2011 census, the population
data has been given in terms of the wards in each Local Self
Government Institution. It is discernible therefrom that, as far
as the 4th respondent Panchayat is concerned, the said details
are given with respect to 17 wards. This is because, when the
Census 2011 was conducted, the number of wards notified in
the 4th respondent Panchayat was only 17. Later, when the
delimitation process was conducted before the last Panchayat
2025:KER:30478
election, it was increased to 18, and now, after the amendment
brought in Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the
same has been further increased to 19. Therefore, the ward-
wise figures reflected in the census cannot be followed as the
distribution of population has to be done for 19 wards, whereas
the data contained in the 2011 census is only for 17 wards.
Therefore, some exercises have to be carried out by the 5 th
respondent Commission to ensure the equal distribution of the
population. According to the 5 th respondent, the criteria now
adopted is the most practical and scientific method, which was
devised by the Commission out of their wisdom and experience.
16. I find merits in the said contention. Even though the
petitioners contend that the present procedure is erroneous,
they are also not in a position to suggest any other alternate or
more effective method for ensuring equal distribution of
population among the wards. It is also an undeniable fact that
the ward-wise population, as contemplated in the 2011 Census
data, cannot be relied on to ensure equal distribution as it
contains only 17 wards. Of course, the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:30478
petitioner referred to Enumeration Blocks (EB), which was the
basic building block for the Census data for 2011 census.
However, on careful scrutiny, it is seen that EB's do not have
any geographical boundaries. On the other hand, even when
the average household population is calculated by placing
reliance upon the number of households as reflected in the
Assessment Register of the Panchayat, such calculation is
based on the total population in the Panchayat as included in
the Census 2011. The average household population is relied
on to ensure the distribution of population among the wards
only. It is also to be noted in this regard that, as per Section
6(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the reference to the
'population' is made for determining the total number of seats
in a Village Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat
to be filled up by direct election. The said provision also
contemplates that, based on the said criteria, the Government
has to notify the number of seats/wards in every Panchayat.
The Government has already relied upon the figures of the
population, based on the Census data 2011, and notified the
2025:KER:30478
number of seats as 19. Now the present exercise is being
conducted only to distribute the population based on the 2011
Census among the number of wards notified by the
Government by following the procedure as referred to above.
Therefore, in all these exercises, the basic data relied on was
the census of 2011 and nothing else. Therefore, I do not find
any illegality on the part of the 5 th respondent in adopting such
a measure.
17. Of course, it is true that the learned counsel for
the petitioner placed before this Court an illustration regarding
the discrepancies when the impugned guidelines are
implemented based on the ward-wise figures mentioned in the
2011 Census data. It is true that the same ranges from 3.55 to
4.57 per ward, as per the said calculation. However, the said
figures cannot be accepted as a proper test for the guidelines
followed by the 5th respondent. As mentioned above, the said
ward-wise data is in respect of 17 wards only and the said
number of 17 wards was fixed during the delimitation exercise
conducted prior to the 2011 Census. Thus, the fixing of the
2025:KER:30478
number of wards as 17 for the 4 th respondent-Panchayat, was
based on the Census data published prior to 2011, which was
in 2001. Therefore, the same cannot be relied on to ensure a
proper distribution of population among the wards, the number
of which is now fixed as 19.
18. The Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent
placed reliance upon the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anugrah Narain Singh (supra), where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the survey conducted for
determining the number of persons belonging to backward
classes for ensuring proper reservation of seats for them. Such
a survey was necessitated because, the census data that was
then available, did not contain the population of backward
classes. The relevant observation made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was as follows:
"33. In our view, the argument advanced on behalf of the
State must be upheld. It is true that Article 243-P(g) has
defined 'population' to mean "population as ascertained by the
last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been
published". The delimitation of constituencies and also
preparation of electoral rolls will have to be done on the basis
of the figures available from the last census which was taken
2025:KER:30478
in 1991. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes is mandatory under Article 243-T of the
Constitution. This must also be done on the basis of the
available figures from the census. Clause (6) of Article 243-T
of the Constitution has made it permissible for the State
Government to reserve seats for other Backward Classes. The
census of 1991 has not enumerated the number of persons
belonging to Backward Classes. Therefore, in order to reserve
seats for citizens belonging to Backward Classes, their
number will have to be found out. Clause (6) of Article 243-T
has impliedly empowered the State Government to ascertain
the Backward Classes and the number of people belonging to
such classes. Otherwise, the provisions of clause (6) of Article
243-T will become otiose and meaningless. Merely because,
such an enumeration of people belonging to Backward Classes
was made, does not mean that the figures enumerated by the
last census were discarded. The latest available census figures
had to be the basis for delimitation of the constituencies,
preparation of electoral rolls and also for reservation of seats
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. But
census figures are not available for persons belonging to
Backward Classes. The next census will be in the year 2001.
There is no way to reserve seats for Backward Classes in the
meantime except by making a survey of the number of
persons belonging to such classes for the purpose of giving
them assured representation in the municipal bodies. To do
this exercise is not to do away with the last available census
figures but to find out what was not to be found by the last
census. Had such counting been done in the census, then it
would not have been open to the State Government to
embark upon a survey of its own. The State Government here
had only two choices. It could say that there will be no
reservation for people belonging to Backward Classes
2025:KER:30478
because, the census figures of such people are not available
or it could make a survey and count the number of people
belonging to the Backward Classes and reserve seats for them
in the municipal bodies. The State Government has taken the
latter course. This is in consonance with the provisions of
clause (6) of Article 243-T. Therefore, the survey made by the
State Government for finding out the number of persons
belonging to Backward Classes was not in any way contrary to
or in conflict with any of the provisions of the Constitution."
19. Thus, it can be seen that the Honourable
Supreme Court permitted the conduct of a survey of Backward
Classes to ensure the reservation for them, as the details of the
population of the Backward Classes were not available in the
Census data then available. Similarly, here, in this case, the
exercise that is being carried out by the 5 th respondent can only
be, therefore, treated as an attempt to ensure compliance with
the Constitutional mandate as per Art. 243-C and the basic
criteria for the same remains the population as per the 2011
Census itself.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ramesh
Chandra Ramanbhai Patel (supra) to contend that the
Delimitation Commission could not have relied on any other
2025:KER:30478
data than the Census. However, the factual circumstances in
the above decision were completely different. The matter dealt
with in the said decision was relating to the conduct of election
without a delimitation exercise and the distribution of wards for
the purpose of reservation. Similarly, the Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam's case (supra) relied on by the petitioner also
cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as it dealt
with a situation where, despite the increase in the number of
districts in Tamilnadu, the Government proceeded to conduct
election for the Local Self Govt. Institutions without carrying out
the delimitation process in tune with the increase in the number
of districts. Similarly, Nazeer A.P's case (supra), yet another
decision relied on by the petitioner, dealt with a peculiar case in
the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, where an amendment was
brought in, to divide the islands into separate panchayats based
on the voter's list. The said amendment was struck down in
view of the fact that, there was no data available as per the
census which could be relied on for dividing the existing islands.
In Nazeer's case (supra), this court interfered because the
2025:KER:30478
population figures available were completely ignored, and
delimitation was based on the voters list. Therefore, the factual
circumstances that existed in the said case were different. As
pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the 5 th
respondent, a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to
Government v. L.R. Arundevi (2025 KHC Online 317) held
that, "......a judgment must be understood in the context of the
facts of the case and cannot be treated as a general formula".
In the said decision, the observations of the Honourable
Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
(AIR 1968 SC 647) were also extracted, which reads as
follows:
"12. Now let us consider the ratio of the decisions in Nripendra Nath
Bagchi's case (1966 (1) SCR 771), and Ranga Mahammad case (1967
(1) SCR 454). In Bagchi case (1966 (1) SCR 771), this Court laid
down that the word "control" found in Art.235 includes disciplinary
jurisdiction as well. ....
............. The question of law considered in that decision was as
regards the scope of the expression "control over District Court" in
Art.235. The reference to the cadre was merely incidental. A decision
is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence
in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor
what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this
topic this is what Earl of Halsbury L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathern
((1901) AC 495).
"Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, ((1898) AC 1) and
what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general
character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very
often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to
the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the
2025:KER:30478
generality of the expressions which may be found there are not
intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions
are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what
it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a
proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas
every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at
all."
It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a
judgment and to build upon it. ...."
Thus, as the decision in Nazeers' case was rendered in a
different factual circumstance, the observations made therein
cannot be made applicable to this case. This is mainly because,
in this case, the basic data relied on by the 5 th respondent while
implementing the guidelines in Ext P1, is the Census 2011.
21. Thus, on carefully going through the
Constitutional and statutory provisions as referred to above, I
find that, the contentions raised by the petitioner are not
legally sustainable. As observed above, since the basic data
relied on by the 5th respondent Commission is Census 2011, the
procedure adopted by them as per Ext.P1 guidelines cannot be
held to be defective or against any Constitutional or statutory
provisions. Of course, there could be certain discrepancies as
highlighted by the petitioner, such as the inclusion of
uninhabited households in the Assessment Register,
2025:KER:30478
continuation of demolished/abandoned households in the
Register etc. However, those are all matters that can be
highlighted by the respective parties through their objections
submitted in response to the draft notification already
published, so that those anomalies could be removed by the 5 th
respondent-Commission while finalizing the delimitation. Merely
because of such discrepancies, it cannot be held that the
procedure adopted itself is bad, but it can only be the
discrepancies in the implementation of the guidelines, which can
be rectified while considering the objections.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable
reasons to interfere with the delimitation process or the
guidelines fixed by the 5th respondent-Commission. Accordingly,
this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:30478
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7668/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED
24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ
(SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. G.O.
NO. 36/2024/LSGD DATED 14.06.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO. LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1
DATED 06.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
SDC/363/2024/SDC6 DATED 18.11.2024 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF
WARD NO. 1 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIMITATION REPORT OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
18.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
FISHERIES DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, FISHERIES
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
2025:KER:30478
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED
21.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2025
