{"id":14412,"date":"2010-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-30T03:35:46","modified_gmt":"2014-03-29T22:05:46","slug":"chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 4237 of 2008(D)\n\n\n1. CHIRAYINKEEZHU A.BABU, ADVOCATE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MR.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH (RETD),\n\n3. MR.B.B.TANDON, MEMBER,\n\n4. MR.N.MOHANDAS, MEMBER,\n\n5. MR.SHANGARA RAM, SECRETARY,\n\n6. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,\n\n7. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,\n\n8. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER,\n\n9. THE UNION OF INDIA,\n\n10. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :01\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      W.P.(C) No. 4237 of 2008-D\n                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The important question that is raised in this writ petition is with<\/p>\n
regard to the power of the Delimitation Commission of India to issue a<\/p>\n
corrigendum notification, after the publication of the order delimiting the<\/p>\n
Constituencies under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Act (for short ‘the<\/p>\n
Act’). It is also contended that the Statute does not confer any such power<\/p>\n
and the only provision is the one conferring power under Section 11 of the<\/p>\n
Act on the Election Commission to correct any printing mistake in any<\/p>\n
order made under Section 9 or any error arising therein by way of<\/p>\n
inadvertent slip or omission.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The bare facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the<\/p>\n
following:     The petitioner is a permanent resident and                voter in<\/p>\n
Chirayinkeezhu Assembly Constituency and is a lawyer.                 Prior to the<\/p>\n
delimitation of the Constituencies, Chirayinkeezhu Panchayat was part of<\/p>\n
Attingal Assembly Constituency.\n<\/p>\n
      3. After the formation of the Delimitation Commission in terms of<\/p>\n
the Delimitation Act, 2002, Ext.P2, a proposal for delimitation of the<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the State was published. In<\/p>\n
the proposal    serial No.128 Attingal and serial No.129 Chirayinkeezhu<\/p>\n
were to be reserved as SC Constituencies. After the consideration of<\/p>\n
various objections submitted by several voters including the sitting M.L.A.<\/p>\n
of Attingal, viz. Shri   Vakkom B. Purushothaman, the final order was<\/p>\n
published by the Commission as per Ext.P3. Going by the final order<\/p>\n
published on      31.5.2005, serial No.129 Chirayinkeezhu         Assembly<\/p>\n
Constituency was removed from the list of SC reserved Constituency and<\/p>\n
instead serial No.133 Vattiyoorkavu was made as SC reserved Constituency<\/p>\n
in Thiruvananthapuram District.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Ext.P4 is the corrigendum notification issued nearly after three<\/p>\n
years, viz. on 16.1.2008 whereby the Delimitation Commission ordered that<\/p>\n
the   status of 129 Chirayinkeezhu Assembly Constituency shall be as<\/p>\n
reserved for Scheduled Castes, ie. 129 Chirayinkeezhu (SC) instead of 133<\/p>\n
Vattiyoorkavu (SC) and 133 Vattiyoorkavu (SC) shall be shown as a<\/p>\n
General Constituency. This is under attack on various grounds, in this writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Heard Shri T.P.Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel and Shri<\/p>\n
K.V. Sohan, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Murali Purushothaman,<\/p>\n
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
       6. Respondents 2 to 4 are respectively, the Chairman and Members of<\/p>\n
the Delimitation Commission and the 5th respondent is its Secretary.<\/p>\n
       7. Shri T.P. Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner contended that after Ext.P3        final order was passed, the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission has ceased to exist.        Section    11 of the Act<\/p>\n
enables the Election commission to correct any printing mistake in any of<\/p>\n
the orders made by the Delimitation Commission under Section 9 or any<\/p>\n
error arising therein from an inadvertent slip or omission. The Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission has no power to amend or correct the final order including any<\/p>\n
printing mistake or any error after the publication of the order under Section<\/p>\n
10(1) of the Act. Ext.P3 is the order published by the Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission under Section 10(1) of the Act as per the modes provided<\/p>\n
therein including Official Gazettes and going by sub-section (2), it shall<\/p>\n
have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court. The<\/p>\n
said notification was approved by this Court in the decision in Chief<\/p>\n
Electoral Officer v. Sunny Joseph<\/a> (2005 (4) KLT 599) and therefore the<\/p>\n
Commission cannot tinker with the said order, as is done presently. It is an<\/p>\n
order passed without jurisdiction as the Commission became functus officio<\/p>\n
after the publication of Ext.P3 notification. The bar under Article 329(a) of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India to challenge in any Court the order issued by the<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission under the Act will not apply here. Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
totally null and void; it has to be ignored and Ext.P3 therefore has to be<\/p>\n
declared as valid for all purposes. It is also contended that going by the<\/p>\n
principles contained in Section 9(1)(c) of the Act, the SC Constituencies<\/p>\n
should not be clustered, but shall be distributed and herein these two<\/p>\n
Constituencies which are adjoining and from the same taluk, are now shown<\/p>\n
as SC reserved Constituencies.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Shri Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the Election Commission of India and the Delimitation Commission, by<\/p>\n
relying upon the statements filed in support of the action, submitted that the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission did not become functus officio as on the date of<\/p>\n
publication of Ext.P4. In the light of the bar under Article 329(a) of the<\/p>\n
Constitution, the consolidated order Ext.P5 is having the force of law, it is<\/p>\n
beyond challenge and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable,<\/p>\n
especially in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Meghraj<\/p>\n
Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others (AIR<\/a> 1967 SC 669<\/p>\n
which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sunny Joseph’s<\/p>\n
case (2005 (4) KLT 599). Ext.P4 can also be treated as an order issued<\/p>\n
under Section 9 and therefore the same also gets protection under Section<\/p>\n
10(2) of the Act, and the Delimitation Commission is well within its power<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
to issue the corrigendum notification. Learned Standing Counsel relied<\/p>\n
upon various decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
       9. As already noticed, Ext.P2 is the proposal published by the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission under Section 9(2) of the Act, 2002 for the<\/p>\n
delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the State of<\/p>\n
Kerala. Ext.P3 is the order passed under Section 9(2) of the Act and<\/p>\n
published under Section 10(1) of the Act finalising the above proposal after<\/p>\n
considering objections and suggestions made in public sittings. Ext.P5 is<\/p>\n
the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 2008<\/p>\n
made by the Election Commission, viz. the consolidated order in respect of<\/p>\n
all the States.\n<\/p>\n
       10. On behalf of the respondents, various documents have been<\/p>\n
produced. Annexure A is the guidelines prescribed by the Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission for the purpose of completing the whole exercise. Annexure B<\/p>\n
is the photo copy of the Delimitation (Amendment) Ordinances, 2008 and<\/p>\n
Annexure C is the photo copy of the Presidential Order issued under<\/p>\n
Articles 82 and 170(3) of the Constitution dated 19.2.2008 by which the<\/p>\n
Delimitation order in respect of the 22 States\/Union Territories have been<\/p>\n
made applicable from 19.2.2008.        Thus, by      Annexure C, Ext.P3<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
Delimitation Order, which, as corrected by Ext.P4, has been given effect<\/p>\n
from 19.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Some of the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 also will<\/p>\n
be relevant for considering the legal issues raised in this writ petition. The<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission is constituted under Section 3 of the Act and<\/p>\n
under Section 4(2), the Commission shall readjust the division of each State<\/p>\n
into territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the<\/p>\n
People and to the State Legislative Assembly on the basis of the census<\/p>\n
figures and ascertained at the census held in the year 2001. Section 9(1)(c)<\/p>\n
is important, which is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
        “(c) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled<\/p>\n
        Castes shall be distributed in different parts of the State and located<\/p>\n
        as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their<\/p>\n
        population to the total is comparatively large.”<\/p>\n
       12. Section 10(1) empowers the Commission to publish its order<\/p>\n
made under Section 8 or 9 in the Gazette of India and in the official<\/p>\n
Gazettes of the States concerned and simultaneously cause such orders to<\/p>\n
be published at least in two vernacular newspapers, etc. Section 10(2) is<\/p>\n
also important for the purpose of this case which is extracted below:<\/p>\n
        “(2) Upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall<\/p>\n
        have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
        Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Going by sub-section (2) of Section 10, the order passed by the Commission<\/p>\n
herein, (Ext.P3) shall have the force of law and shall not be called in<\/p>\n
question in any Court. Section 11 empowers the Election Commission to<\/p>\n
correct any error arising from an order under Section 9 by inadvertent slip<\/p>\n
or omission, etc.<\/p>\n
      13.   The first question to be considered is       the one    which is<\/p>\n
vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel Shri T.P. Kelu Nambiar<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner, that the entire exercise done by the<\/p>\n
Commission is without any power and jurisdiction and therefore null and<\/p>\n
void. Reliance is placed on Sunny Joseph’s case (2005 (4) KLT 599)<\/p>\n
wherein the Division Bench after interpreting Sections 10(1) and 10(2) of<\/p>\n
the Act, held that judicial review is not permissible against the order of the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission.       It was held by the Division Bench speaking<\/p>\n
through K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. (as he then was) that “By Article 329(a) the<\/p>\n
validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the<\/p>\n
allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any<\/p>\n
Court. The difference in the phraseology used in Article 329(a) and (b)<\/p>\n
may give some room for challenging the orders passed under Article 329(b)<\/p>\n
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on certain limited grounds<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
but not the orders relating to delimitation of constituencies which fall under<\/p>\n
Article 329(a).” The words “shall not be called in question” are absent in<\/p>\n
Article 329(b), but very much present in Article 329(a).” Article 329(a) is<\/p>\n
extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
       “(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of<\/p>\n
       constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made<\/p>\n
       or purporting to be made under Art.327 or Art.328, shall not be<\/p>\n
       called in question in any court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, the Division Bench, following the decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Meghraj Kothari’s case (AIR 1967 SC 669), put a lid on the order Ext.P3<\/p>\n
beyond the pale of challenge and hence it is pointed out that as this Court<\/p>\n
also cannot touch it under Article 226 of the Constitution and hence the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission could not have passed Ext.P4..<\/p>\n
      14.    Learned Senior Counsel Shri T.P. Kelu Nambiar further<\/p>\n
submitted that the Delimitation Commission became functus officio after<\/p>\n
the publication of Ext.P3. The pleadings made by the respondents in this<\/p>\n
regard are relevant, since they dispute the same. It is pointed out in the<\/p>\n
statement filed on behalf of the respondents dated 18.2.2008 that after the<\/p>\n
Census Commission of India published the relevant figures of the 2001<\/p>\n
census on 31.12.2003, the Delimitation Commission of India commenced<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
the work of delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies<\/p>\n
from 2004. Final orders have been published as on the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
said statement in respect of all States and Union Territories, except Assam,<\/p>\n
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Manipur. In respect of these States, the<\/p>\n
Delimitation has been deferred by        the President of India under the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Act, 2002 as further amended in 2008. The Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission was carrying out its task assigned to it under the Constitution,<\/p>\n
Representation of the People Act and the Delimitation Act then and the<\/p>\n
Commission would become functus officio only after completion of the<\/p>\n
task. It is therefore submitted that since the Delimitation Commission was<\/p>\n
functional and as no consolidated Delimitation order has been published<\/p>\n
by the Election Commission at that point of tine, Ext.P4 is perfectly within<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.   It is passed in exercise of the inherent powers of the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission.      The Election Commission can exercise the<\/p>\n
power under Section 11 only after the process of delimitation in all States is<\/p>\n
completed by the Delimitation Commission.\n<\/p>\n
      15. In the further statement filed on 26.3.2008, it is pointed out that<\/p>\n
in exercise of the powers under Section 10A(1) of the Act, the President of<\/p>\n
India   has by order published in the Gazette of India          deferred the<\/p>\n
delimitation exercise in the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
and Manipur. Annexure B is the copy of the Delimitation (Amendment)<\/p>\n
Ordinance, 2008.    Annexure C published by the President of India in<\/p>\n
exercise of the powers under Articles 82 and 170(3) of the Constitution, is<\/p>\n
dated 19.2.2008.    Therein, Ext.P3, corrected by Ext.P4 has been given<\/p>\n
effect from 19.2.2008. In the additional statement dated 20.10.2008 filed<\/p>\n
by the respondents, it has been pointed out that the Chairperson of the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission informed the Government of India about the<\/p>\n
accomplishment of delimitation work by the Delimitation Commission and<\/p>\n
expressed its intend to demit the office of the Chairperson with effect from<\/p>\n
31.5.2008    and the Government of India         in exercise of the powers<\/p>\n
conferred by Section 3 read with sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Act, has notified the 1st day of June 2008 as the date on which<\/p>\n
the Delimitation Commission shall cease to exist.       The same has been<\/p>\n
produced as Annexure D.\n<\/p>\n
      16. In the light of the factual scenario pointed out above, it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that the Delimitation Commission became functus officio after<\/p>\n
publication of Ext.P3 order. As on the date of Ext.P4 order, therefore, the<\/p>\n
Commission was continuing its official functions and by Annexure D<\/p>\n
notification dated    23.5.2008 it has ceased to exist with effect from<\/p>\n
1.6.2008. The question is whether in the light of Section 11 of the Act,<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
conferring powers on the Election Commission of India, the power to<\/p>\n
correct any inadvertent slip or omission, etc. the Delimitation Commission<\/p>\n
retains the very same power in the absence of any express provisions under<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       17.   It is well settled that a statutory power will be construed as<\/p>\n
impliedly authorising everything which can be regarded as incidental or<\/p>\n
consequential to the power itself, and it is also well settled that the power<\/p>\n
can be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. Normally after an<\/p>\n
order is issued by the Delimitation Commission of India under Section 9<\/p>\n
and published under Sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Act, the Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission will cease to exist. It is evident from Section 11(1)(a) that<\/p>\n
the Election Commission is conferred with the power to correct any printing<\/p>\n
mistake in any of the orders made by the Commission under Section 9 or<\/p>\n
any error arising therein from an inadvertent slip or omission.      The said<\/p>\n
power is given obviously to promote public interest itself, as otherwise such<\/p>\n
orders, unless allowed to be corrected, will throw the system open to<\/p>\n
criticism.\n<\/p>\n
       18. But, will it deny the power of the Delimitation Commission<\/p>\n
while the said Commission is in office, to correct an accidental error or<\/p>\n
omission, merely because of the publication of the order under Section 10<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
(1) of the Act? Herein, in Ext.P4 it is pointed out that due to purely clerical<\/p>\n
error in the EXCEL sheets relating to Thiruvananthapuram District<\/p>\n
prepared at the time of signing the final order in respect of Kerala State, the<\/p>\n
total SC population and percentage of SCs in 133-Vattiyoorkavu (SC) AC<\/p>\n
were inadvertently shown as 55530 and 24.74% respectively, which were<\/p>\n
wrong and whereas the correct figures were 23214 & 10.34% respectively.<\/p>\n
In Chirayinkeezhu      there is a higher percentage of SC (15.99%). It is<\/p>\n
pointed out in Ext.P4 itself that in the light of the correct figures and in the<\/p>\n
light of the general principles adopted by the Commission for reservation of<\/p>\n
Assembly Constituencies for SC in terms of Section 9(1)(c) of the Act.<\/p>\n
129-Chirayinkeezhu AC should qualify for reservation as SC instead of<\/p>\n
133-Vattiyoorkavu SC.\n<\/p>\n
      19. Herein, I may refer to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this<\/p>\n
Court in V.V. Prakasini v. K.P.S.C. and others<\/a> (1993 (1) KLJ 632)<\/p>\n
wherein it was held that     public authority has power to correct apparent<\/p>\n
mistake even without a specific provision. Rule 3(c) of the KS & SSR was<\/p>\n
challenged on the ground that the power conferred is unguided. While<\/p>\n
considering the power of the Public Service Commission under Rule 3(c)<\/p>\n
to cancel an advice of a candidate which was wrongly made, T.L.<\/p>\n
Viswanatha Iyer, J. held thus in para 18:\n<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
      “Such a reserve power to correct mistakes committed by itself has to
\n      be located in every public authority in the interest of justice and to
\n      avoid arbitrariness. It is not uncommon – in fact it is a human falling\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      – that errors are committed in the conduct of human affairs.
\n      Infallibility is not a human virtue, that being a quality attributable
\n      only to the Almighty. Such a power to correct apparent mistake is
\n      therefore an absolute necessity and has to be found in every
\n      authority, even without a specific provision. …………………Equally if
\n      the higher ranking given to the petitioner could have been
\n      successfully challenged as patently erroneous, why not the same
\n      result be achieved by the Commission itself rectifying what
\n      otherwise was an obvious mistake committee by it? Conferment of
\n      such a power is found in various statutes and is an essential requisite
\n      for achieving the ends of justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
An earlier decision of this Court by the same learned Judge in Sasidharan<\/p>\n
v. Reserve Bank of India<\/a> (1990 (2) KLT 573) and the decision of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh (AIR<\/a> 1964 SC 521), have<\/p>\n
been relied upon, to explain the said legal position. The Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
above decision, held thus while analysing a similar issue:<\/p>\n
       “The question then is as to the effect of a void order of confirmation.<\/p>\n
       When an order is void on the ground that the authority which made<\/p>\n
       it had no power to make it cannot give rise to any legal rights, and as<\/p>\n
       suggested by the learned Advocate General, any person could have<\/p>\n
       challenged the status of the respondents as Thahsildars by instituting<\/p>\n
       proceedings for the issue of a writ of quo warranto under Article 226<\/p>\n
       of the Constitution. Had such proceedings been taken it would not<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
       have been possible for the respondents to justify their status as<\/p>\n
       permanent Tahsildars and the High Court would have issued a writ<\/p>\n
       of quo warranto depriving the respondents of their status as<\/p>\n
       permanent Tahsildars. Now, where the Government itself realises<\/p>\n
       that an order made by an authority under the Government is void, is<\/p>\n
       it powerless to do anything in the matter? It is bound to give effect<\/p>\n
       to a void order and treat as confirmed Tahsildars persons who have<\/p>\n
       no legal right to be treated as confirmed Tahsildars? Is it not open to<\/p>\n
       the Government to treat the confirmation as void and notify the<\/p>\n
       persons affected and the public in general of the fact of its having<\/p>\n
       done so by issuing a notification of the kind it made on October 31,<\/p>\n
       1957? In our opinion where a Government servant has no right to a<\/p>\n
       post or to a particular status, though an authority under the<\/p>\n
       Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give<\/p>\n
       that person a status which it was not entitled to give he will not in<\/p>\n
       law to be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given<\/p>\n
       the particular status.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      20. In the earlier decision, in Sasidharan’s case (1990 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
573), the learned Judge considered a case where the appointing authority<\/p>\n
corrected a mistake in making a wrong appointment without reference to<\/p>\n
seniority. It was held thus in para 7:\n<\/p>\n
      “The power is inherent in any administrative authority to correct<\/p>\n
      accidental mistakes committed by it, in ignorance of, or overlooking<\/p>\n
      the facts. Indeed such power should be exercised, where rights of<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
       third parties have been affected by the mistaken proceedings, without<\/p>\n
       their knowledge, and without their being heard, resulting in<\/p>\n
       miscarriage of justice. If the power to correct inadvertent mistakes is<\/p>\n
       not recognised and accepted, it may lead to perpetuation of injustice<\/p>\n
       and to undesirable consequences. A person whose rights are so<\/p>\n
       affected by an illegal order passed behind his back need not be<\/p>\n
       compelled to rush to court to get it set aside, on pain of its being held<\/p>\n
       binding otherwise. The authority concerned can itself remedy the<\/p>\n
       mischief, on its being apprised of its mistake and the injustice<\/p>\n
       flowing therefrom. (See in this connection Karunakaran Nambiar v.<\/p>\n
       Director of Public Instruction – 1966 KLT 290). Such an order does<\/p>\n
       not affect any rights of the party benefiting by the mistake, as no<\/p>\n
       rights legally inhered in him by virtue of the mistaken order. Wade<\/p>\n
       in his Administrative Law (Fifth Edition, page 226) points out that<\/p>\n
       even where such powers are not (expressly) conferred, statutory<\/p>\n
       tribunals would have power, to correct accidental mistakes, and to<\/p>\n
       review a decision when facts subsequently discovered have revealed<\/p>\n
       a miscarriage of justice. The same rules must apply to non-statutory<\/p>\n
       action by administrative authorities as well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I respectfully agree with the above dictum laid down by the learned Judge.<\/p>\n
      21. Therefore, even in the absence of an express power conferred on<\/p>\n
the Delimitation Commission, the Commission is well within its power to<\/p>\n
correct mistakes. The Commission found that the principles for allotting<\/p>\n
the constituencies to SC was followed, but because of the mistake in the<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
figures shown, an inadvertent mistake occurred in Ext.P3. It is clear from<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 that in Vattiyoorkavu       SC, the percentage is      10.34% and in<\/p>\n
Chirayinkeezu it is 15.99%, a higher percentage.       Section 9(1)(c) of the<\/p>\n
Act obliges the Commission to distribute the constituencies in favour of SC<\/p>\n
as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their population<\/p>\n
to the total is comparatively large.        The    power exercised by the<\/p>\n
Commission is in tune with the power already conferred on them to carry<\/p>\n
on delimitation of constituencies      and issue orders on them under the<\/p>\n
relevant provisions.\n<\/p>\n
       22. True, Section 10(2) provides that an order passed under Section<\/p>\n
10(1) is having the force of law and cannot be called in question in any<\/p>\n
court of law. Therefore, it is clear that even judicial review is not permitted<\/p>\n
with regard to the finality attached to the order in view of Section 10(2).<\/p>\n
But even in respect of such an order, power is conferred on the Election<\/p>\n
Commission under Section 11 (1)(a) to correct any printing mistake in any<\/p>\n
of the orders made by the Commission under Section 9 or any error arising<\/p>\n
therein from an inadvertent slip or omission. If such a power is conceded<\/p>\n
to the Election Commission, there is nothing wrong in            conceding an<\/p>\n
inherent power to the Delimitation Commission to exercise the very same<\/p>\n
power while the said Commission is in office. If the argument of the<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is accepted, then the order under Section 9 cannot be touched by<\/p>\n
the Election Commission also since the same is having the force of law,<\/p>\n
after its publication under Section 10(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n
       23.   Therefore, the true issue is whether any accidental slip or<\/p>\n
omission should be allowed to be corrected, which will only advance the<\/p>\n
purpose of the Delimitation Act and the          principles for delimitation<\/p>\n
provided under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India and<\/p>\n
Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 in regard to SC constituencies.<\/p>\n
What is effected by Ext.P4, therefore, is the mandate of the statute in tune<\/p>\n
with the principles under Article 332 of the Constitution. Hence the<\/p>\n
inherent power of the Delimitation Commission has to be conceded in such<\/p>\n
circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
       24. It is true that the Division Bench in Sunny Joseph’s case (2005<\/p>\n
(4) KLT 599) upheld the notification Ext.P3 with regard to Kannur<\/p>\n
Assembly Constituency.         But that will not deprive the Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission any power to issue a corrigendum notification.<\/p>\n
       25. The next question is whether Ext.P4 is liable to challenge in this<\/p>\n
writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of the<\/p>\n
express bar under Article 329(a) of the Constitution. The argument raised<\/p>\n
by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Kelu Nambiar is that Ext.P4 is a void<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
order and therefore there is no bar for this Court to declare that it is not<\/p>\n
having any legal validity. But in the light of the findings rendered by me<\/p>\n
above that the Delimitation Commission has power to issue Ext.P4, it<\/p>\n
cannot be termed as a void order and it has to be treated as valid for all<\/p>\n
purposes. As pointed out already, the Election Commission has already<\/p>\n
come out with the consolidated order as enjoined by Section 8 of the<\/p>\n
Representation of the people Act, 1950. Section 8 of the said Act confers<\/p>\n
power on the Election Commission to publish single order known as<\/p>\n
Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 2008<\/p>\n
after the Delimitation Commission has issued various orders in respect of<\/p>\n
different States. Section 8(1)(a) and 1(b) for our purpose, is extracted<\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
       8(1) Having regard to all the orders referred to in sub-section (5) of<\/p>\n
       section 4 and sub-section (3) of section 7 relating to the delimitation<\/p>\n
       of parliamentary and assembly constituencies, in all States and Union<\/p>\n
       Territories, except the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam,<\/p>\n
       Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland, made by the Delimitation<\/p>\n
       Commission and published in the Official Gazette, the Election<\/p>\n
       Commission shall–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) after making such amendments as appear to it to be<\/p>\n
               necessary for bringing up-to-date the description of the extent<\/p>\n
               of the parliamentary and assembly constituencies as given in<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        19<\/span><\/p>\n
              such orders, without, however, altering the extent of any such<\/p>\n
              constituency.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b) after taking into account the provisions of              the<\/p>\n
              Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies<\/p>\n
              Order 1976, as made applicable pursuant to the orders made<\/p>\n
              by the President under Section 10A of the Delimitation Act,<\/p>\n
              2002 (33 of 2002) relating to delimitation of parliamentary<\/p>\n
              and assembly constituencies in the States of Arunachal<\/p>\n
              Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland, and the provisions<\/p>\n
              of section 10B of the said Act relating to delimitation of<\/p>\n
              parliamentary and assembly constituencies in the State of<\/p>\n
              Jharkhand,<\/p>\n
      consolidate all such orders into one single order to be known as the<\/p>\n
      Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order,<\/p>\n
      2008 and shall send authentic copies of that Order to the Central<\/p>\n
      Government and to the Government of each State having a<\/p>\n
      Legislative Assembly; and thereupon that Order shall supersede all<\/p>\n
      the orders referred to in sub-section (5) of section 4 and sub-section<\/p>\n
      (3) of section 7 and shall have the force of law and shall not be called<\/p>\n
      in question in any court.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Going by the same, the consolidated order, viz. Delimitation of<\/p>\n
Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 2008 shall have the<\/p>\n
force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. Ext.P5 is<\/p>\n
the consolidated order thus brought out by the Election Commission dated<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         20<\/span><\/p>\n
26.11.2008. Thereafter Ext.P4 cannot have a separate and independent<\/p>\n
existence, now, leaving it open for a separate challenge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      26. Shri Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the respondents, submitted that in the light of Section        8 of the<\/p>\n
Representation of the People Act, 1950 since the said order has the force of<\/p>\n
law, it cannot be challenged under Article 329(a) of the Constitution and<\/p>\n
therefore, in this writ petition, the same cannot be called in question, as<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 has merged with the consolidated order Ext.P5. The consolidated<\/p>\n
order Ext.P5 shows;        serial No.128 Attingal (SC), serial No.129<\/p>\n
Chirayinkeezhu (SC) and 133 Vattiyoorkavu (General).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      27. Article 329(a) contains an absolute bar for this Court to consider<\/p>\n
the challenge against the order under the Delimitation Act, which is well<\/p>\n
settled by a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Meghraj Kothari’s case (AIR 1967 SC 669). After analysing the various<\/p>\n
provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, their Lordships held<\/p>\n
thus in para 19 and 20:\n<\/p>\n
       ”    (20) In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of<\/p>\n
       constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before<\/p>\n
       the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under<\/p>\n
       Ss.8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official<\/p>\n
       gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
      reagitated in a court of law.      There seems to be very good reason<\/p>\n
      behind such a provision. If the orders made under Ss. 8 and 9 were<\/p>\n
      not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so<\/p>\n
      wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the<\/p>\n
      delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2)<\/p>\n
      of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that<\/p>\n
      the orders under Ss.8 and 9 published under S.10(1) were to be<\/p>\n
      treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (20) It is true that an order under S.8 or 9 published under S.10<\/p>\n
      (1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the<\/p>\n
      same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Sunny Joseph’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
elaborately considered the scope and effect of Article 329(a) and examined<\/p>\n
whether the same will breach the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda<\/p>\n
Bharathi’s case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) and after considering the said<\/p>\n
decision and the decision of the Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v.<\/p>\n
Raj Narain (AIR<\/a> 1975 SC 2299), held in para 11 that judicial review can<\/p>\n
be excluded in certain limited areas, though it is considered to be the basic<\/p>\n
structure of the Constitution. Reliance was also placed on the later decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and others<\/p>\n
{(1997) 3 SCC 261} wherein after considering the above two decisions of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court, Article 329(a) was cited as an example and further it was<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                           22<\/span><\/p>\n
pointed out that judicial review cannot be considered to be a part of the<\/p>\n
basic structure so far as election to the legislature is concerned.<\/p>\n
      28. I may mention here two earlier decisions of the Apex Court, viz.<\/p>\n
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency<\/p>\n
(AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 64), a landmark decision by a Constitution Bench which was<\/p>\n
relied on by another Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill and<\/p>\n
another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (AIR 1978 SC<\/p>\n
851). While considering the question whether the rejection of nomination<\/p>\n
could be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
in the light of the express bar under Article 329(b), Fazil Ali, J., speaking<\/p>\n
for the Bench, held thus in para 15 in Ponnuswamy’s case (supra):<\/p>\n
       ” It may be pointed out that             Art.329(b) must be read as<\/p>\n
       complimentary to Cl.(a) of that article.           Clause   (a) bars the<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction of the Courts with regard to such law as may be made<\/p>\n
       under Arts. 327 and 328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies<\/p>\n
       or the allotment of seats to such constituencies……….. If Part XV of<\/p>\n
       the Constitution is a code by itself, i.e. it creates rights and provides<\/p>\n
       for their enforcement by a special tribunal to the exclusion of all<\/p>\n
       Courts including the High Court there can be no reason for assuming<\/p>\n
       that the Constitution left one small part of the election process to be<\/p>\n
       made the subject matter of contest before the High Courts and<\/p>\n
       thereby upset the time-schedule of the elections.              The more<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                         23<\/span><\/p>\n
      reasonable view seems to be that Art.329 covers all “electoral<\/p>\n
      matters”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      29. In the other important decision in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case<\/p>\n
(AIR 1978 SC 851), V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., after referring to Ponnuswamy’s<\/p>\n
case (supra), held thus in para 24 and 25:\n<\/p>\n
      “Ponnuswamy (AIR 1952 SC 64) is a landmark case in election laws<\/p>\n
      and deals with the scope, amplitude, rationale and limitations of<\/p>\n
      Art.329(b)……….There is a non obstante clause in Article 329 and,<\/p>\n
      therefore, Art.226 stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form<\/p>\n
      of calling in question an election, except in special situations pointed<\/p>\n
      at but left unexplored in Ponnuswamy (AIR 1952 SC 64).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, in the light of the non-obstante clause in Article 329, the same<\/p>\n
reasoning will apply herein also.\n<\/p>\n
      30. In a recent decision in Association of Resident of MHOW<\/p>\n
(Rom) and another v. The Delimitation Commission of India (2009 (5)<\/p>\n
SCC 404), a similar question was considered by the Apex Court. Therein,<\/p>\n
the Delimitation Commission, as per its proposals, had shown             Dhar<\/p>\n
Parliamentary Constituency          as one consisting of 8 Assembly<\/p>\n
Constituencies including 203-Depalpur and the adjoining 26-Indore<\/p>\n
Parliamentary Constituency had also 8 Assembly Constituencies including<\/p>\n
209 Mhow. In the final determination       the Commission included Mhow<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        24<\/span><\/p>\n
Assembly Constituency into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency by deleting<\/p>\n
the same from Indore Parliamentary Constituency as originally proposed.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Depalpur Assembly Constituency has been deleted from<\/p>\n
Dhar Parliamentary Constituency and added to Indore parliamentary<\/p>\n
Constituency. This was challenged on the ground that the said shifting is<\/p>\n
not preceded by any proposal by the Delimitation Commission. While<\/p>\n
examining the issue, the Apex Court took the view that in the light of<\/p>\n
Article 329(a), the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. It<\/p>\n
was argued by the appellant before the Apex Court that the protection will<\/p>\n
be available only when the mandatory requirements of Section 9(2) are<\/p>\n
complied with by the Commission. The Apex Court, after explaining the<\/p>\n
decision in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Singh Khesttra Samiti {(1995)<\/p>\n
Suppl. (2) SCC 305} and after relying upon Meghraj Kothari’s case<\/p>\n
(supra), held thus in para 25:\n<\/p>\n
        “In the present case, the Commission finally determined the<\/p>\n
        delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Madhya<\/p>\n
        Pradesh after considering all objections and suggestions received by<\/p>\n
        it before the specified date and got published its orders in the<\/p>\n
        Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the State as is<\/p>\n
        required under Section 10(1) of the Act. The orders so published<\/p>\n
        puts them “in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself”.<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                          25<\/span><\/p>\n
        Consequently that Notification is to be treated as law and required<\/p>\n
        to be given effect to.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is pointed out that herein, before Ext.P4 was issued, there was no<\/p>\n
proposal and no hearing was conducted and for that reason also, Ext.P4<\/p>\n
cannot be supported. But the above decision is a complete answer to the<\/p>\n
said argument also.\n<\/p>\n
      31.     Shri    Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondents raised a further argument that going by<\/p>\n
Section 9(2)(d) of the Act, there can be more than one orders regarding<\/p>\n
delimitation of Assembly Constituencies and therefore Ext.P4 cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be illegal. In fact, Section 9 of the Act shows that the Commission<\/p>\n
shall distribute the seats in the manner provided under the provisions and<\/p>\n
it should call for objections and suggestions and will have to hold one or<\/p>\n
more public sittings at such place or places in the State concerned, going by<\/p>\n
Section 9(2)(c). It is after following all those steps that Section 9(2)(d)<\/p>\n
provides that “the Commission shall thereafter by one or more orders<\/p>\n
determine — (i) the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies; and (ii) the<\/p>\n
delimitation of assembly constituencies.”         Ext.P4 was issued as a<\/p>\n
corrigendum after the order under Section 9(2)(d) was issued by the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission.       In that view of the matter, Section 9(2)(d)<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                          26<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be said to be attracted in the facts of this case.<\/p>\n
      32. The next question is whether the bar under under Section 329(a)<\/p>\n
applies to Ext.P5, as a consolidated order as provided under Section 8 of<\/p>\n
the Representation of the People Act, 1950 has already been published as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P5, and as the same has also been published in the same manner as<\/p>\n
in respect of Ext.P3 by publishing in the Gazette, etc. The allegation that<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 has been published by the Secretary of the Delimitation<\/p>\n
Commission, has been denied and it has been explained that it it is a<\/p>\n
proceedings issued by the Delimitation Commission itself.          Therefore,<\/p>\n
nothing turns on the said allegation that it        is not one issued by the<\/p>\n
Commission.\n<\/p>\n
      33. Herein, as noticed already, by Annexure A, it is specified by the<\/p>\n
Central Government that 1st day of June, 2008 will be the date on which the<\/p>\n
Delimitation Commission shall cease to exist. Ext.P4 is dated 18.1.2008.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission had become functus<\/p>\n
officio in terms of Annexure D, Delimitation Amendment Order, 2008. Sub-<\/p>\n
section (6) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 was amended by<\/p>\n
fixing 31st July, 2008 as the final date for completion and publication of<\/p>\n
orders. It is clear that the Chairperson of the Delimitation Commission has<\/p>\n
informed the Central Government about the accomplishment of the<\/p>\n
wpc 4237\/2008                        27<\/span><\/p>\n
delimitation work by the Commission and intend to demit the office of the<\/p>\n
Chairperson with effect from May 31, 2008.               Annexure C is the<\/p>\n
Presidential Order under Articles 82 and 170(3) of the Constitution, as<\/p>\n
already noticed, by which Ext.P3 Delimitation Order corrected by Ext.P4,<\/p>\n
has been given effect from 19.2.2008.\n<\/p>\n
      34. The consolidated order Ext.P5 as noticed, is one issued under<\/p>\n
Section 8(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the bar<\/p>\n
under Article 329(a) applies to it also. Hence, the writ petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable<\/p>\n
      35. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                     (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 4237 of 2008(D) 1. CHIRAYINKEEZHU A.BABU, ADVOCATE, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, … Respondent 2. MR.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH (RETD), 3. MR.B.B.TANDON, MEMBER, 4. MR.N.MOHANDAS, MEMBER, 5. MR.SHANGARA RAM, SECRETARY, 6. THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5939,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010"},"wordCount":5939,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010","name":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-29T22:05:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chirayinkeezhu-a-babu-vs-the-delimitation-commission-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu vs The Delimitation Commission on 1 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14412","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14412\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}