Kerala High Court
Nizar A @ Perumathura Nizar vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2025
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO.38014 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ABDUL HAMEED MOULAVI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.SAIDALI, MANAPPATTU HOUSE, MANAKKADAVU,
PANTHIRANKAVU POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 019.
2 V.P.ABDUL SALEEM,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, MARJAN HOUSE,
KOLOTHUPARAMBU,KONTHANARI, G.A COLLEGE POST,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
3 K.K KOYA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.CHERIYA MOOZA, KAIMANGALATH HOUSE, PALAZHI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
4 VINOD KUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, 12/598, MEKKOTH
ULLATTIL PARAMBU, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 019.
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 2
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION,
COMMISSION,CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS
JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
4 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 678 001.
5 SECRETARY,
OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 014.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013)
K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEING FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.38651/2024 AND 40036/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 21.03.2025DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 38651 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MAJEED M.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.MOOSA, RAHIMAN MANZIL, PACHAMBALA,
ICHILANGOD, KASARGOD, PIN - 671 324.
BY ADVS.
R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
SALEEK.C.A.
SARUN RAJAN
THAREEK T.S.
HAMDAN MANSOOR K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA,
VIKAS BHAVAN, JANAHITHAM, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
4 PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR, LSGD,
PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE SWARAJ BHAVAN,
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 4
NANTHANCODE.FIFTH FLOOR KOWDIAR (PO)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.
5 JOINT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671 121.
6 MANGALPADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
MANGALPADI P.O., KASARGOD, PIN - 671 324.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHIRAZ ABDULLA M.S.
K.ABDUL NASSAR(K/366/2011)
VISHNU DEV C.S.(K/000647/2023)
ALDIN JOSE M.J.(K/4477/2024)
MUHAMMED AZHARUDEEN A.(K/003778/2023)
AKHIL TOM(K/4584/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40036 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRAMOD KUMAR S.N.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA LSG EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,
STATE COMMITTEE, JOINT COUNCIL OFFICE, PRESS CLUB
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, RESIDING AT
KEERAMBHALLIL HOUSE, MADIKAI P.O., KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671 314.
BY ADVS.
P.P.BIJU
PARTHASARATHI M.K.
SAFNA P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 KERALA STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
REP .BY. ITS SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
3 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY. ITS SECRETARY, LMS JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 6
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SECRET SECTION) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695 001.
5 MUHAMMED ASHRAF
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE T.A.MUHAMMED, ASHAR MANZIL,
EDNEER P.O., PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 IN
IA.No.1 OF 2024 )
BY ADVS.
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
DEEPU LAL MOHAN
Adv Merseena Vincent
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP© NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO.46567 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 NIZAR A @ PERUMATHURA NIZAR, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.M.A.AZEEZ, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMATHURA P.O.,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 303.
2 FASIL HAQ M., AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMED ASEEM, THITTAYIL VEEDU, MADANVILA,
PERUMATHURA P.O., SARKARA - CHIRAYANKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 303.
3 SAJEEB K.Z, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.ZAINUDEEN K.S, SAJAD SADAN, KADINAMKULAM,
PUTHUKURICHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695 303.
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 8
2 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
3 DELIMITATION COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION, COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.
4 DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 043.
5 SECRETARY,
CHIRAYANKEEZHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 691 571.
6 SECRETARY,
AZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 305.
7 SECRETARY,
KADINAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 301.
BY ADVS. SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
Liju MP
Dinesh Mathew J Murikan
VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012)
MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.(K/1451/2019)
NAYANA VARGHESE(K/283/2021)
JERRY PETER(K/3088/2023)
RIA VARGHESE(K/1367/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.38014/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 21.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:23103
WPC.No.38014/24 & Conns. 9
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.38014/2024, 38651/2024, 40036/2024, 46567/2024]
...
In all these cases, the main challenge raised is against the
amendment brought by the Government to Section 6(3) of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as per Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Second Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act, 15 of 2024). The notification
issued in this regard is produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.C.No.38014 of
2024. (For convenience W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 is treated as the
leading case and the parties to the litigation and the exhibits
produced are hereinafter referred to as per their respective ranks
and sequences as mentioned in the said writ petition, unless
otherwise specifically mentioned).
2. The basic issue involved in all these cases is with regard
to the competence of the Government to bring in an amendment as
referred to above to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,
1994, by which the minimum and maximum number of seats in a
Panchayat to which members are to be directly elected, are
increased. To be precise, as per the amended provisions, the
minimum number of seats is increased to 14 from 13 and the
maximum number is increased to 24 from 23.
2025:KER:23103
3. In W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 the petitioners therein are
concerned with the delimitation process now in progress in
Olavanna Grama Panchayath in Kozhikode district. According to
them, the said Panchayat is one of the most populous Panchayats in
the State of Kerala with a total population 68,432 as per the
census conducted in the year 2011. Earlier, taking note of the
population in the Panchayat and various other aspects, the
Government issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25.4.2015 by which it
was decided to bifurcate several Panchayats by creating new
Panchayats and the Olavanna Panchayat was one among the same.
The decision was to divide Olavanna Panchayat by creating a new
Panchayat named, Pantheerankavu. Consequent to Ext.P1
notification, the 3rd respondent Delimitation Commission passed
Ext.P2 and P3 final orders fixing the wards within the said
Panchayats. The Ext.P1 notification was challenged by various
persons before this Court mainly on the reason that new
Panchayats were created by carving out certain portions of the
existing villages without notifying those portions as new villages as
envisaged under Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India. The
said challenges were answered by this Court as per Ext.P4
judgment, wherein, Ext.P1 was quashed for want of prior
2025:KER:23103
notification by the Governor as contemplated under Article 243(g)
of the Constitution of India. After the said judgment, the
Government issued SRO.No.138/2020 dated 12.02.2020 stating
that as the Government cannot afford the expenditure in
connection with the creation of new Panchayats, it was decided not
to proceed further with the proposal to divide and create the
Panchayats.
4. Now the Government has come up with Ext.P7
notification by which the amendment was carried out in Section
6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, increasing the
minimum and maximum number of seats. On the basis of Ext.P7,
corresponding amendment was also made in Rule 3 of Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength) Amendment Rules 2024. A copy
of the said notification is produced as Ext.P8. On the basis of the
same, Ext.P9 notification was also published by the Government
increasing the number of the wards in all the Grama Panchayats.
The above amendments and the consequential notifications are
under challenge in this writ petition.
5. W.P(C) No.46567 of 2024 concerns with the delimitation
process in Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat in
Thiruvananthapuram District, which was also included in Ext.P1
2025:KER:23103
notification by which the said Panchayat was divided into two
namely, Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat and Perumathura Grama
Panchayat. The contentions raised in this writ petition are also
similar to the contentions raised in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024.
However, in addition to the above, it is also contended that, as far
as the petitioners are concerned, who are the residents of
Perumathura village, the creation of Perumathura Panchayat was
contemplated in Ext.P7 taking note of the peculiar geographical
position of the Perumathura village which is geographically
separated from the other parts of the Kadinamkulam Panchayat.
Therefore, according to them, creation of a separate Panchayath
for the Perumathura Village is an absolute necessity which was
recognized in Ext.P1, and therefore, the carrying out the
delimitation process on the basis of the amendment now brought in
without creating the new Panchayat as referred to above is illegal.
6. In W.P.C.No.40036 of 2024 and W.P.(C).No.38651 of
2024, the petitioners are raising similar challenges as according to
them the Panchayats having high population as per the census
completed in the year 2011 have to be divided by creating new
Panchayats and the delimitation now in progress on the basis of the
amendment brought in is not effective in view of the fact that the
2025:KER:23103
same is confined to the increase in the number of wards alone.
Therefore, according to them, the present delimitation is not in
tune with the requirements under Article 243C of the Constitution
of India.
7. The Government filed a counter affidavit mainly
contending that, as far as the division of the existing local self
government institutions are concerned, it is a policy decision of the
State Government and as on date no such decision has been taken
by the Government to bifurcate the Panchayats or Municipalities.
The Government has decided only to increase the minimum and
maximum number of wards in all local self government institutions
uniformly, based on population. The amendments as referred to
above were brought in for implementing the said decision which is
well within the powers of the Government. The District Election
Officer, the 4th respondent in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 filed a
statement supporting the stand taken by the Government. The
respective Panchayats have also filed counter affidavits opposing
the reliefs sought in the writ petitions.
8. Heard Sri.Mohammed Shah, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 and
W.P.C.No.46567/24, Sri.Biju P.P., learned counsel appearing for the
2025:KER:23103
petitioners in W.P.C.No.40036 of 2024, Sri.R. Anas Muhammed
Shamnad, the learned counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)No.38651/2024, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned standing
counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, the State Election commission
as well as Delimitation Commission, and Smt.Deepa K.R, learned
Special Government Pleader for the other official respondents.
9. According to the petitioners, the proviso to Article 243C
creates an obligation upon the Government to see that a uniform
ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat
and the number of seats in the Panchayat to be filled by election, is
maintained throughout the State. To achieve the said purpose,
bifurcation of certain Panchayats including those referred to in
these writ petitions are absolutely necessary and therefore,
bringing in an amendment to increase the number of seats without
taking such measures, is a futile exercise. Hence, it has to be
interfered with.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 also placed reliance upon the statutory
obligation of the Government contemplated under Section 4(2)
which provides for the powers of the Government to increase the
area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayath, diminish the
2025:KER:23103
area of any Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat etc. It was also
contended that proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act contemplates and reiterates the necessity to
maintain the ratio between the population of the territorial area of
the Panchayat and the number of seats in such Panchayat as the
same, throughout the State. The learned counsel for the
petitioners also highlighted certain discrepancies in maintaining
such uniformity, by citing the population figures in Mankulam
Grama Panchayath in Idukki District, where the population is
9,594.
11. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader
as well as the learned standing counsel of the Delimitation
Commission stoutly opposed the contentions raised by the
petitioners. According to them, the challenge raised by the
petitioners against the amendment brought by the Government as
per Ext.P7 notification to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act cannot be entertained in view of the Constitutional prohibition
contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution of India. It
was also pointed out that, such prohibition was upheld in respect of
the delimitation process which is under challenge in these writ
petitions, in a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of this
2025:KER:23103
Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor [2025 KHC Online
236]. It was also contended that the contentions raised by the
petitioners on the strength of Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act were also considered in the above decision and were found
against the petitioners therein. Therefore, these writ petitions are
only to be dismissed, it was contended.
12. The issues raised in these writ petitions are to be
considered in the above mentioned circumstances. Before moving
further, the relevant Constitutional and statutory provisions have to
be examined first. Article 243 C of the Constitution of India, which
deals with the composition of panchayats 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
2025:KER:23103
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;
(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
2025:KER:23103
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."
13. Article 243O of the Constitution of India, which
contemplates a bar to interference by the Courts in electoral
matters reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of
seats to such constituencies, made or purporting
to be made under article 243K, shall not be called
in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented
to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the
Legislature of a State."
2025:KER:23103
14. Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,
deals with the power of the Government to with regard to the
creation of panchayat reads as follows:
4. Power of the Government to constitute and specify the name and
headquarters of Panchayat.-
(1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute
with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification,--
(a) a Village Panchayat for each village or for group of villages;
(b) a Block Panchayat at intermediate level; and
(c) a District Panchayat for each District Panchayat area and specify
the names and headquarters of such panchayats.
(2) The Government may, at the request of the Panchayat concerned,
or after consultation with the Panchayat and after previous publication
of the proposal by notification,--
(a) increase the area of any [Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] by
including within such Panchayat area any village or group of villages;
(b) diminish the area of any [Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] by
excluding from such Panchayat area any village or group of villages;
(c) alter the headquarters of a Panchayat at any level; or
(d) alter the name of a Panchayat at any level:
Provided that any alteration extending or reducing the area of a
'[Village Panchayat or Block Panchayat] under clause (a) or clause (b)
shall not be brought into force before the expiry of the term of the
existing committee of that Panchayat.
(3) The Government may, after consultation with the Panchayat, pass
such orders as they deem fit as to the disposal of any part of the
property vested in a Village Panchayat [or Block Panchayat] which has
2025:KER:23103
ceased to exercise jurisdiction over any village or group of villages and
the discharge of the liabilities of the Village Panchayat relating to such
property or arising from such village including all matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
15. Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which deals
with the strength of 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
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.]
2025:KER:23103
(4) The procedure of fixing the strength of a Panchayat
shall be such as may be prescribed.
Section 10(1) (a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as
follows:
"10. Division of Panchayats into constituencies.-- (1)
The Government shall by notification in the Gazette,
constitute a Delimitation Commission consisting of the
State Election Commission as the Chairman and four
Officers, not below the rank of Secretary to
Government, as members. The said Delimitation
Commission shall, as soon as may be after fixing the
strength of a Panchayat at any level under Section 6
and after determining the number of seats to be
reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
for Women,--
(a) divide every Panchayat into as many constituencies
as there are seats and fix the boundaries of such
constituencies:
Provided that the population of each constituency shall,
as far as practicable, be the same throughout the
Panchayat area:
Provided further that where the territorial area of a
Block Panchayat is divided into constituencies, the
boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any
constituency of any Village Panchayat and where the
territorial area of a District Panchayat is divided into
constituencies the boundaries of such constituencies
shall not divide any constituency of any Village
Panchayat or of any Block Panchayat, into more than
one division.
2025:KER:23103
(1A) The officers for the functioning of the Delimitation
Commission, procedure for the conduct of meeting
including quorum and other related matters shall be
such, as may be prescribed.
(1B) The State Election Commission or the officer
authorised by it in this behalf shall, on determination
by the Government of the number of seats to be
reserved, earmarked and constituency or
constituencies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes or Women.
(2) The Delimitation Commission shall,-
(a) publish [the proposals of the Delimitation
Commission] in respect of the matters mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (1), with a notice specifying
the date on or after which the proposals will be
considered by it and by inviting objections and
suggestions with respect to the proposals before a date
specified in the notice, by affixing copies thereof on the
notice board of the office of the Panchayat concerned
and in such conspicuous places within the Panchayat
area concerned;
(b) publish in the Gazette and in any two local
newspapers having wide circulation within the
Panchayat area concerned the fact of publication under
clause (a);
(c) consider all objections and suggestions that may
have been received by ³[the Delimitation Commission]
before the date so specified; and
(d) delimit the constituencies.
(2A) The officer authorised by the State Election
Commission in this behalf shall determine, as to which
constituency, the constituencies reserved for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women shall be
2025:KER:23103
allotted according to rotation, by draw of lots at the
time, date and place fixed by the Commission in this
behalf, by notification.
(2B) After the draw of lots under sub-section (2A), the
State Election Commission or the officer authorised by
it shall issue an order determining the constituency
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or
Women.
(3) An order made by the '[State Election Commission
or the officer authorised by it] [or the Delimitation
Commission] shall not be called in question in any
Court of law.
(3A) Every order issued by the Delimitation
Commission with regard to the delimitation of
constituencies under this section shall be published in
the gazette and shall have the force of law.
(4) The Delimitation Commission] shall furnish free of
cost three copies each of the proposals published and
the final orders issued under sub-section (2) to the
committees at the Panchayat level concerned of all
political parties having representation in the
Legislative Assembly and copies of such orders shall
also be made available for sale, at the price fixed by the
Delimitation Commission], to all the public who require
them.
16. Section 6(3), originally stood prior to the amendment in
the year 2024 contemplated that, in the case of Village Panchayat
the minimum number of seats should be 13 and the maximum
should be 23. As per Rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of
2025:KER:23103
Strength) Rules, 1994, for areas having population not exceeding
15,000, there shall be 13 members and for areas having a
population exceeding 15000, there shall be 13 members for the
first 15,000 and 1 additional member for every 2,500 population in
excess of 15,000 subject of a maximum of 23 members. Now, by
virtue of the amendment as per Ext.P7 notification, the minimum
and maximum numbers are increased by one, thereby re-fixing the
numbers as 14 and 24, respectively. This is the subject matter of
challenge.
17. The first objection raised by the respondents is with
regard to the maintainability of these writ petitions, in the light of
the Constitutional prohibition contemplated under Article 243O. In
fact, the said question was specifically considered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Abdul Gafoor's case (supra), where the
challenge raised was against the very same delimitation process
and also the Ext.P7 notification, on a different ground. There the
challenge was on the ground that, the delimitation process is being
carried out, based on the Census conducted in the year 2011, and
in respect of the Panchayats/Municipalities in those writ petitions,
a delimitation exercise on the basis of 2011 Census was already
carried out before the previous election to the Local-self
2025:KER:23103
Government Institutions. Therefore, it was contended that, by
virtue of the stipulations contained in Section 6(2) of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, no delimitation process could have been carried
out, on the basis of the very same Census data, and the same could
have been done only after new Census is conducted. Even though
the learned single judge accepted the said contention and allowed
the writ petitions, that common judgment was set aside by the
Division Bench in the above referred decision. While considering
the aforesaid challenge, one issue specifically framed by the
Division Bench was as follows:
"Does the challenge to Section 6(3), which modifies the
strength of the local authority, fall within the scope of the
delimitation process and thereby attract the bar under
Article 243 -O of the Constitution?"
18. This was answered by the Division Bench in paragraph
14 and 15 which reads as follows:
"Point I.
14. Article 243-O of the Constitution places a
complete bar on the Court to entertain the validity
of law relating to the delimitation of constituencies
or allotment of seats to such constituencies. The
Constitution did not define delimitation.
Delimitation is normally understood as a process
of changing the boundary of the Constituency. In
2025:KER:23103
V. Ramachandra Reddy and Another v. State of
Andhra Pradesh And Others [AIR 1965 AP 40], the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed that
"The word 'delimit' in its natural sense means 'to
mark out as a boundary' to bound; to mark or
determine the limits of; to define as a limit or
boundary".
15. There cannot be any dispute that consequent
upon the increase of strength, the boundaries of
the wards in the local authority could be altered.
This alteration is the delimitation. Therefore, there
is a constitutional bar for this Court to entertain a
challenge to Section 6(3). The amendment
made to Section 6(3) by the State Legislature
increased the strength of the Councillors.
Further, there is no scope for entertaining any
challenge questioning the vires of the amendment
made to Section 6(3) as it is within the
competence of State Legislation and it does not
involve violation of fundamental rights of the writ
petitioners. Also, we cannot say that there is any
manifest arbitrariness on the part of the
legislature to increase the strength of the local
authority. Therefore, the challenge of questioning
the amendment made to Section 6(3) of both the
enactments must fail."
2025:KER:23103
19. Besides, the contention raised by the petitioners on the
strength of Section 4 was also considered in paragraph 28, which
reads as follows:
"28. The argument of the learned Counsel, Shri R.
Surendran, on behalf of the writ petitioners--that
a notification under Section 6(1) is linked to
Section 4(1) concerning the constitution of a
municipality and, therefore, cannot be altered
unless there is a change in the composition of the
local authority--is untenable. Section 6 is an
independent provision that specifically governs the
determination of the strength of Councillors in a
local authority. In contrast, Section 4 pertains to
the determination of the territorial jurisdiction of a
local authority. Additionally, Section 4 addresses
the alteration and conversion of a local authority,
such as the transition from a Village Panchayat to
a Town Panchayat, from a Panchayat to a
Municipal Council, or from a Municipal Council to
a Municipal Corporation."
20. Of course it is true that section 4 dealt with in paragraph
28 above, was the provision in the Kerala Municipality Act, but a
careful reading of the corresponding provision in the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, it can be seen that the basic principles and the
stipulations under both the said provisions are one and the same,
2025:KER:23103
even though the same was differently worded. The consequences
of such provisions are also practically the same and therefore, the
observations made by the Division Bench on the above question are
also very much relevant for considering the issues involved in these
cases.
21. As far as the maintainability of these writ petitions is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon
a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.[MANU/SC/10222/2024], where it was observed by the
Honourable Supreme Court as follows:
"5.We, however, do not approve the view taken by
the High Court that the order of delimitation of
constituencies, issued in exercise of statutory
powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely
insusceptible to the powers of judicial review
exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Although Articles 329 undeniably restricts the
scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law
relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot
be construed to have imposed for every action of
delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is
deemed completely barred, citizens would not
have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving
them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation
Commission. As a constitutional court and the
guardian of public interest, permitting such a
scenario would be contrary to the Court's duties
and the principle of separation of powers."
2025:KER:23103
22. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard
is that, what was under challenge in the aforesaid decision before
the Honourable Supreme Court was relating to the alleged
discrepancies in the delimitation process carried out by the
Delimitation Commission and it was not a case where there was a
challenge against an enactment dealing with the election of the
Panchayats. The prohibition contained in Article 243O pertains to
the challenge against an enactment relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies
made or purporting to be made under Article 243K. It is to be
noted that, Article 243K (4) contemplates the powers of the
legislature of a State to make laws, with respect to all matters
relating to or in connection with elections to the Panchayat. As far
as Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the
amendments brought to the said provisions are concerned, the
same is an enactment, that comes within the scope of Article
243K(4), and thus, the bar under Article 243O is clearly applicable.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought the
attention of this Court to the observations in various other
judgments, wherein the parameters were set out by the Honourable
Supreme Court, while entertaining the challenge against a law
2025:KER:23103
made by the legislature. However, when there is a specific bar
contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution, in relation to
a challenge against a particular statute in a particular field, the
aforesaid parameters cannot be normally applied, unless the
enactment is resulting in such serious ramifications, which goes
against the basic structure of the Constitution or it is completely
contrary to the Constitutional scheme on the subject. As far as the
contentions raised in these cases are concerned, the ramifications
highlighted are not of that nature or magnitude. The petitioners
also could not produce any materials to arrive at such a conclusion.
24. Moreover, in State of U.P and Others v. Pradhan
Sangh Kshettra Samiti and Others [(1995) Supp 2 SCC
305== AIR 1995 SC 1512], it was observed by the Honourable
Supreme Court that, from the reading of Articles 243C, 243K and
243O it is obvious that neither the delimitation of Panchayat nor of
the constituencies in the said areas and allotment of seats to the
constituencies could have been challenged or the court could have
entertained such challenge except on the ground that before
delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given.
25. As mentioned above, the amendment under challenge
is the one which introduced the increase in the minimum and
2025:KER:23103
maximum of the seats in the Panchayats, where elections are to be
conducted. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the same
defeats the purpose behind the proviso to Article 243C of the
Constitution, where it is contemplated that, ratio between the
population of the territorial area of a Panchayat and the number of
seats in such Panchayat shall be the same through out the State, as
far as practicable. Thus, the purpose of Article 243C is to provide
for the law by the State for the composition of Panchayat by
maintaining the ratio as referred to above, as far as practicable.
26. In exercise of the said power, or in fulfillment of the
said obligation, the State formulated laws, by incorporating
necessary provisions in this regard in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,
1994. Chapter III of the Act, which contains Sections 4 to 9, to deal
with same. Section 4 (1) deals with the power of the Government to
form three tier Panchayats, whereas subsection (2) thereof deals
with the powers of the Government to increase or decrease the
area of the Panchayat, alter the headquarters of the Panchayath,
alter the name of the Panchayat Etc.
27. In these cases, the contention of the petitioners is that
the Government had earlier exercised the above power and issued
Ext.P1 notification for dividing certain Panchayats, considering
2025:KER:23103
various relevant aspects and realizing the necessity to have such
bifurcations. According to the petitioners, even though the said
notification was set aside on certain technical reasons, the fact
remains that, the Government recognized the necessity to have
such bifurcations. It is also the case of the petitioners that, such
steps were taken by the Government, by fulfilling its obligation
under the proviso to Article 243C. Therefore, the contention is
that, having been convinced of the said necessity, which is in
conformity with the Constitutional obligations, the Government
should have resorted to the steps for such bifurcations after curing
the defects that led to the judgment of this court setting aside the
Ext.P1 notification. Without doing that exercise, making an
amendment to section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,
increasing the number of seats is not proper, it is contended.
28. However, on carefully going through the stipulations in
section 4 and Section 6, I am not impressed with the said
contentions. This is because, both provisions are independent
provisions. Section 4 deals with the formation of Panchayats, and
bifurcation of the same and matters connected thereto, whereas
Section 6 deals with the powers regarding the composition of the
Panchayat in terms of the number of seats in the Panchayat, once
2025:KER:23103
such Panchayat is formed or bifurcated as per section 4 and at later
stages. Even though, formation or bifurcation of Panchayat as per
Section 4 necessitates a proceeding under Section 6, it cannot be
concluded that, such formation or bifurcation is absolutely
necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 6 in all cases. It is
to be noted in this regard that, Section 6 (3) of the Act, provides for
a scale for fixing the strength of every Panchayat in terms of
number of seats. Nowhere in Section 6 of the Act, it is mentioned
that, it can happen only in event of the formation of the new
Panchayat or bifurcation of the existing Panchayat. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot insist for bifurcation of certain existing
Panchayats, before introducing the amendment of the scale
contemplated in Section 6(3). The view taken by this court is
fortified by the observations made by the Division Bench in Abdul
Gafoor's case (supra) as well, where it was held that Section 6 is
an independent provision.
29. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner that the
amendment now introduced is against Article 243C and its proviso,
also is not legally sustainable, for the reason hereinafter
mentioned. This contention is raised by the petitioners, mainly
highlighting certain disparities in the ratio referred to in proviso to
2025:KER:23103
Article 243C, between certain Panchayats where the population is
very low and the Panchayats with high population. As an
illustration, the population figure of Mankulam Grama Panchayat
(9594) in Idukki district, was highlighted as against the population
of the Olavanna Panchayat where the population is 68,432 (as per
the Census 2011). It was pointed out that, as per the amended
provision, the strength of the Panchayat is 685 per ward for
Mankulam, whereas it is 2,851 per ward for the Olavanna
Panchayat. The example of Nedumpana Panchayat in Kollam
district was also cited, where the population is 51,384 and the
population per ward is 2,141. Thus, it was pointed out that, this
amounts to gross disparity and therefore the obligation to maintain
a uniform ratio as mentioned in the proviso to Article 243C is not
maintained throughout the State.
30. While considering this contention, the crucial aspect to
the noted is that, the necessity to maintain a uniform ratio between
the population in the Panchayat and the number of seats, as
contemplated in the proviso to Article 243C is not absolute and it is
not necessary that, it should be maintained in all circumstances.
The expression "so far as practicable" in Article 243C of the
Constitution is very crucial, and it clearly conveys that the uniform
2025:KER:23103
ratio is not an absolute necessity. As far as the creation or
bifurcation of Panchayats is concerned, it depends upon various
factors such as geographical features, population density, terrain
etc. The Government has to take into account all the relevant
aspects while forming or bifurcating the Panchayats and fixing the
strength of such Panchayats in terms of the number of wards.
Therefore, the obligation imposed upon the Government, as per the
proviso to Article 243C while carrying out the said exercise, is to be
fulfilled by making every endeavour to maintain such a uniform
ratio throughout the State, as much as practicable. As far as the
creation or bifurcation of the Panchayats are concerned, as rightly
contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is a policy
decision to be taken by the Government, taking note of various
aspects, and it is not for this court to decide. It is also not open for
any person to insist for the same, as of right. When the
Government has taken a decision by taking note of all the relevant
aspects, it is not for this court to decide upon the same and to give
directions to the Government in this regard. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot raise a contention that the amendment brought
by the Government by increasing the strength of the Panchayats is
to be interfered with, for the reason that some of the Panchayats
2025:KER:23103
need to be bifurcated according to the petitioners, before the
carrying out such amendments.
31. Moreover, the fact that the Government earlier issued
a notification to bifurcate the some Panchayats as per Ext.P1 by
itself cannot be ground to issue any direction in this regard to the
Government. As mentioned above, it is policy decision and it is for
the Government to decide, whether to continue or re-commence the
process early commenced as per Ext.P1 and the petitioners do not
have any enforceable right to seek for issuance of writ of
mandamus, in this regard.
32. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that, disparity as highlighted above by citing the
example of Mankulam Panchayat, is adversely affecting the equal
distribution of resources of the Government among the citizens.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that, instead of increasing the
number of seats/wards, the Government should have taken steps to
bifurcate highly populous Panchayats. This is also something which
comes within the powers of the legislature, being policy decisions
and it is not for this court to decide, so long as there is no statutory
stipulation or prohibition against the increase in the number of
seats/wards in Panchayats without the creation of new Panchayats
2025:KER:23103
or bifurcation of the existing Panchayats. In this regard, it is to be
noted that this court has already held that the power under section
6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is independent and does
not necessarily depend upon section 4, in all cases.
33. There is yet another aspect, for which the contention of
the petitioners is to be rejected. The comparison made by the
petitioner to highlight the disparity in the ratio through the State is
by citing the example of Mankulam Panchyat in Idukki District, as
against the Panchayats in Kozhikode and Kollam districts. The
basic features of the said Panchayats are completely different, as
the peculiar features and characteristics of the Panchayat in Idukki,
are completely different in terms of Geographical area, forests,
terrain, population density, etc. Thus, the same amounts to a
comparison between the unequals, and therefore, cannot be treated
as a proper comparison for the purpose connected with the issues
involved in these cases.
34. In W.P.(C).No.46567 of 2024, an additional contention
was raised by the petitioners therein who are inhabitants of
Perumanthura Village in Kollam, which comes within the limits of
Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat. According to them, the
Perumathura Village is geographically isolated from the other parts
2025:KER:23103
of the Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat due to the water bodies
surrounding the village. The village has a population of 15,000, and
hence, it has to be formed into a separate Panchayat. It was also
pointed out that, formation of a separate Grama Panchayat was
contemplated in Ext.P1 which did not materialize. However, this
court has already held that, formation and bifurcation of the
Panchayat are policy matters of the Government and it is not for
this court to consider the same. The petitioners do not have any
vested right to seek for a writ of a mandamus. Therefore the said
contention also is not acceptable.
35. In such circumstances, after considering all relevant
aspects, the findings of this court are summarized in the manner as
follows:
i) As the challenge is against the law enacted by the
Government in relation to the matters mentioned in
Article 243K of the Constitution of India, there is a
prohibition in challenging the same, as per Article 243O.
ii) The petitioners could not establish that the
consequences of the amendment brought in by the Kerala
Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 are against
basic structure of the Constitution or against the
Constitutional scheme relating to the election to the Local
Self Government Institutions.
iii) Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is an
independent provision. Even though a formation of a new
panchayat under section 4(1) or an increase or decrease
in the area of an existing Panchayat as contemplated
under section 4(2), may necessitate proceedings under
section 6, such formation or increase/decrease of the area
2025:KER:23103
of the Panchayat is not a condition precedent in all the
cases, for initiating proceedings under section 6.
iv) The decisions regarding the formation of new Panchayats
or increase/decrease in the area of a Panchayat are
matters of policy of the Government and hence such
decisions of the Government can neither be interfered
with nor directions could be issued to take such decisions,
by this court under normal circumstances.
v) The petitioners do not have any vested right to seek for
bifurcation of their respective Panchayats
In the light of the above, I am of the view that the petitioners
could not establish any grounds to maintain a challenge against the
amendment brought to the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, as per
Kerala Panchayat (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 and accordingly
these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG/19.3.25
2025:KER:23103
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38651/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUECOPY OF SEAT WISE COUNT OF PENDING
FILES BEFORE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS/OFFICES
IN MANGALPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P2 TRUECOPY OF TABULAR DATA OF THE
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OF
MANJESWARAM TALUK BEFORE MINISTER OF
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT WHICH RECOMMENDED
BY MANJESWARAM MLA
EXHIBIT P4 TRUECOPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATE
29.09.2023 PASSED BY THE MANGALPADI GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.01.2024 BY
SECRETARY OF MANGALPADI TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IT'S ENCLOSURE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.
LSGD/JD/KSD/326/2023-A3(1) DATED
11.01.2024 SENT BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESONDENT WITHOUT IT'S ENCLOSURE
2025:KER:23103
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40036/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.12.2015 IN WPC NO.32813/2015 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(GEN)
NO.877/2018/LSGD DATED 28.03.2018 ISSUED
BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31.08.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
08.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1" RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.11.2020 IN WPC NO.150/2020 OF THIS
HON;BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
NO.GO(P) NO.36/2024/LSGD S.R.O
NO.513/2024 DATED 14.06.2024
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
NO.LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1DATED
06.09.2024
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER
2025:KER:23103
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46567/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. G.O.
(P).NO.140/15/LSGD DATED 25.04.2015
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DELIMITATION
ORDER DATED 30.05.2015 FOR PROPOSED
PERUMATHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUECOPY OF JUDGMENTDATED 10.08.2015
PASSED IN W.P.(C) NO. 15524/2015
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 138/2020 DATED
12.02.2020
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXCERPT OF ANSWERS
GIVEN BY HON'BLE MINISTER OF LSGD IN THE
19TH MEETING OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY DATED 06.03.2020
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
DATED 09.07.2024
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ
(FIXING OF STRENGTH) AMENDMENT RULES,
2024 DATED 01.09.2024
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1 DATED 06.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED
24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER
DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 5TH
RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER
DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 6TH
RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT DELIMITATION ORDER
DATED 18.11.2024 PUBLISHED FOR 7TH
RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYA
2025:KER:23103
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38014/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. G.O.
(P).NO.140/15/LSGD DATED 25.04.2015
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
30.05.2015 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH
RESPECT TO OLAVANNA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
30.05.2015 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH
RESPECT TO PANTHEERANKAAV PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
15524/2015 DATED 10.08.2015
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 138/2020 DATED
12.02.2020
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXCERPT OF ANSWERS
GIVEN BY HON'BLE MINISTER OF LSGD IN THE
19TH MEETING OF KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY DATED 06.03.2020
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
DATED 09.07.2024
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ
(FIXING OF STRENGTH) AMENDMENT RULES, 2024
DATED 01.09.2024
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
LSGD/PD/24269/2024-EER1 DATED 06.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED
24.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE POPULATION DATA OF
PANCHAYATS IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ALONG
WITH THE NUMBER OF WARDS FIXED ON THE
BASIS OF POPULATION.
