JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the residents of different wards of the Cherpulassery Municipality, the 2 nd respondent herein. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that, despite Ext.P4 notification issued by the Government, constituting a Delimitation Commission, the 3 rd respondent herein, for the purpose of carrying out the exercise of delimitation in all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State by dividing the wards and fixing the boundaries thereof, the 3 rd respondent Commission had taken a decision not to carry out such exercise for the 2 nd respondent-Municipality. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The 2 nd respondent-Municipality was constituted by the Government as per GO(P)No.152/2015/LSGD dated 30.04.2015 under Section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. The said Municipality was constituted by converting the then existing Cherpulassery Grama Panchayat and adding three wards of Thrikkadeeri Grama Panchayat. Upon constitution of the same, as per GO(P)No.164/2015/LSGD dt.11.5.2015, the number of wards in the Municipality was notified as 33. Thereafter, the Delimitation Commission vide Ext.P2 order, divided the Municipality into 33 wards, by fixing the boundaries thereof, on 7.9.2015. According to the petitioners, the delimitation process culminated in Ext.P2 was conducted in a hurry within four months and there were widespread complaints against the delimitation of wards. According to the petitioners, it was carried out in a haphazard and unscientific manner without adhering to the guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission in this regard. Elections were carried out, based on the division of wards as per Ext P2. 3. As per Ext.P5, the Government notified the constitution of a Delimitation Commission on 14.06.2024 for carrying out the delimitation exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State, for the elections to be conducted in the year 2025. Thereafter, Ext.P3 notification was published on 09.07.2024, amending Section 6 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act by increasing the minimum and maximum number of wards in the Municipalities, as 26 and 53 respectively, from 25 and 52 respectively. Later, Ext.P4 notification was issued on 10.09.2024, refixing the number of wards in all the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations. As per the said notification, the number of wards fixed for the 2 nd respondent Municipality was determined as 33, which was equal to the number of wards notified in the year, 2015. 4. Later, Ext.P4 notification was issued on 10.09.2024, refixing the number of wards in all the Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations. As per the said notification, the number of wards fixed for the 2 nd respondent Municipality was determined as 33, which was equal to the number of wards notified in the year, 2015. 4. The 3rd respondent-Commission published Ext.P6 guidelines for carrying out the delimitation exercise consequent to the Exts.P3 and P4 notifications. In Ext.P6, it is specified that, as per the Ext.P5 notification, a delimitation exercise is envisaged for all the Municipalities/Municipal Corporations based on 2011 census, even if there is no change in the number of wards. However, later, as per Ext.P7, an amendment was brought in, in Ext P6 Guidelines, wherein it is specified that, in respect of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, where there is no change in the number of wards, it is not necessary to carry out the delimitation exercise. Thus, in the light of Ext.P7, the 3 rd respondent-Commission excluded the 2 nd respondent Municipality from the list of Local Self Government Institutions where the delimitation exercise is to be carried out. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Ext.P7 notification. According to the petitioners, such an amendment and consequential exclusion of the 2 nd respondent Municipality from the delimitation, is beyond the powers of the 3 rd respondent Commission, and the same is unsustainable. A consequential relief to command the 3 rd respondent to carry out the delimitation in the 2 nd respondent Municipality was also sought. 5. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 1st respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent also filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri. T.B.Hood, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.R.Deepa, the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th respondents and Sri. P.A. Mohammed Sha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7. 7. 6. Heard Sri. T.B.Hood, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.R.Deepa, the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th respondents and Sri. P.A. Mohammed Sha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7. 7. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Government, while constituting the 3 rd respondent Commission as per Ext.P5, under section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, clearly specified that, the Commission is constituted to carry out the delimitation process for all Local Self Government Institutions in the State. In Ext.P6 guidelines also, the said fact is clearly mentioned, thereby indicating that the 3 rd respondent Commission understood Ext.P5 notification as the one intended to carry out delimitation exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions. Therefore, having been entrusted with the task of carrying out the delimitation exercise in all such institutions, it was not open for the 3 rd respondent-Commission to exclude certain institutions from the purview of such exercise, by bringing an amendment to the Ext P6 Guidelines, in the nature of Ext.P7. It was also contended that, the previous delimitation was ten years ago, and several discrepancies existed in the said process. Besides, on account of subsequent developments during the past ten years, there must be changes in the distribution of population among the wards and hence, a delimitation exercise is necessary to ensure the equal distribution of population in the wards of the Municipality, as mandated under the proviso to section 69 of the Municipality Act. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader supported the said contentions, contending that, while issuing Ext.P5 notification, what was intended by the Government was to carry out the said exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions. 9. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader supported the said contentions, contending that, while issuing Ext.P5 notification, what was intended by the Government was to carry out the said exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions. 9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent specifically contended that, as far as the delimitation process is concerned, the same can be carried out only in respect of eventualities contemplated under Section 6 read with section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act , such as, when there is change in the population based on the census data or in cases where there is change in the number of wards in the Institution as per the notification issued in this regard by the Government. In this case, there are no changes as referred to above. Therefore, carrying out the delimitation process in the 3 rd respondent- Municipality is not warranted as per the provisions and the 3 rd respondent is not empowered to carry out such exercise. 10. Before considering the issues, the relevant Constitutional and statutory provisions are to be examined. Article 243R of the Constitution of India provides for the composition of Municipalities, which reads as follows: 243-R. Composition of Municipalities .- (1) Save as provided in clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area and for this purpose each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. (2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide- (a) for the representation in a Municipality of - (i) persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration; (ii) 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 the Municipal area; (iii) the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of State registered as electors within the Municipal area; (iv) The Chairpersons of the Committees constituted under clause (5) of article 243-S; Provided that the persons referred to in paragraph (i) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality; (b) the manner of election of the Chairperson of a Municipality. Section 6 of the Municipalities Act contemplates the constitution of Municipal Councils, which reads as follows: “6. Section 6 of the Municipalities Act contemplates the constitution of Municipal Councils, which reads as follows: “6. Constitution of Council. (1) The Government shall, in accordance with the criteria specified in sub- section (3) , notify the total number of seats of the Councilors to be filled by direct election in a Town Panchayat, Municipality and Municipal Corporation considering the population of the area of the Municipality concerned. (2)The Government, may after publishing the relevant data according to each census, vary the total number of seats of Councilors in a Municipality notified under sub-section (1) subject to criteria specified in sub - section (3). (3) The number of seats of Councillors notified under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2), shall be,— (a)In the case of a Town Panchayat or a Municipal Council — (i) [twenty-six], where the population in the area of the Town Panchayat or Municipal Council does not exceed twenty thousand, and (ii)Where the population of the Town Panchayat or Municipal Council exceeds twenty thousand, “[twenty- six] councillors for the population of first twenty thousand, and one each for every two thousand and five hundred of the population exceeding twenty thousand, subject to a maximum of [fifty-three] Councillors; (b)In the case of a Municipal Corporation, ___ (i) [fifty-six], where the population in the area of the Municipal Corporation does not exceed four lakhs, and (ii)Where the population exceeds four lakhs, [fifty-six] councillors for the population of first four lakhs and one each for every ten thousand exceeding four lakhs subject to a maximum of one hundred Councillors]. (4)The Councillors of every Municipality shall be elected by direct election]. (5) Specified seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality. The number of seats to be reserved in a Municipality shall be determined by the Government. (4)The Councillors of every Municipality shall be elected by direct election]. (5) Specified seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality. The number of seats to be reserved in a Municipality shall be determined by the Government. The number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different wards in a Municipality as the 14[the State Election Commission or an officer authorised by it] may, determine for each general election: Provided that where the population of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in a municipal area is not sufficient to make them eligible for the reservation of any seat, one seat shall be reserved in that Municipality for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes having higher population. (6)[Fifty per cent (in the case of fraction, it shall be fixed to the next higher integer)] of the total number of seats reserved under sub-section (5) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes: Provided that where the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes under sub-section (5) is only one, that seat need not be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (7) [Fifty per cent (in the case of fraction, it shall be fixed to the next higher integer)] (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved by the Government for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different wards in a Municipality as the 14[the State Election Commission or an officer authorised by it] may, by notification in the Gazette, determine for each general election. (8) Nothing contained in sub-sections (5) to (7) shall be deemed to prevent persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women from being a candidate to the election to the unreserved seats in a Municipality. (9) The officer authorised in this behalf by the State Election Commission shall, by draw of lots, determine the wards to which seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under sub-section (5) and for Women under sub-sections (6) and (7) are to be allotted by rotation at such time and on such date and at such place as may be notified by the Commission. (10) Immediately after deciding the reserved wards under sub- section (9), the State Election Commission shall notify the list of wards so reserved, in the manner prescribed. Section 69 of the Municipalities Act deals with the division of municipalities into wards, and the said provision reads as follows: “69. Division of Municipalities into wards for election, reservation etc .- (1) For the purpose of election of Councillors to Municipalities, [the Delimitation Commission constituted by Government under sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] shall, after previous publication of the proposals inviting objections or suggestions, if any and after considering the same, divide the Municipalities into as many wards as there are number of seats as notified under section 6 50 [and determine the boundaries thereof]: Provided that the population of each ward in a Municipality shall, as far as practicable, be equal. (2) Copies of the proposals published and final orders issued under sub- section (1) shall be published by affixing copies thereof on the notice board of the office of the Municipality concerned, and in such conspicuous places within the concerned municipal area. The fact of such publication shall be published in the Gazette and in two local newspapers having wide circulation within the municipal area concerned. [(2A) Every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the division of wards and the determination of their boundaries under this section shall be published in the Gazette and it shall have the force of law.)] (3) Only one Councillor shall be elected for each ward and election shall be by secret ballot. (4) A person whose name has been included in the electoral roll of a ward shall be entitled to vote in an election to that ward. (4) A person whose name has been included in the electoral roll of a ward shall be entitled to vote in an election to that ward. (5) No delimitation of wards or change of wards for the purpose of reservation shall be made in a Municipality after its constitution except for the purpose of general election to that Municipality and no such delimitation or change of wards shall, in any manner, affect the existing Municipality.” 11. When carefully examining the Constitutional and statutory scheme as revealed from the above provisions, I am of the view that, the reliefs sought in the writ petition cannot be granted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is to be noted in this regard that, the specific contention raised by the 3 rd respondent is that, the power of the Commission to carry out the delimitation is confined to the situations where there is change in the population on account of the publication of figures in a new census, or there is change in the number of wards as per the notification issued by the Government under section 6 of the Municipality Act. On carefully going through the stipulations contained in Section 69 of the Municipality Act, it can be seen that the said provision contemplates the division of Municipalities into wards based on the number of seats as notified under Section 6 of the Municipality Act. When going through section 6 of the Municipality Act, it can be seen that, sub-section (1) contemplates for notifying the total number of seats to be filled up by direct election, considering the population of the area of the Municipality. The expression 'population ' is defined in Art.243 P(g) which reads as follows: “ 'population' means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published” . As far as the population as referred to above is concerned, what is applicable is the 2011 census, which was already relied on during the process of delimitation conducted in the year, 2015. There is no change in the same even now, and hence, for that reason, no delimitation is necessary. 12. Another situation that warrants a delimitation process is based on the change in seats as notified under section 6(1) of the Municipality Act. There is no change in the same even now, and hence, for that reason, no delimitation is necessary. 12. Another situation that warrants a delimitation process is based on the change in seats as notified under section 6(1) of the Municipality Act. Of course it is true that, the Government brought in an amendment in section 6(3) of the Municipality Act as per Ext.P3 notification, by refixing the minimum and maximum number of wards in the Municipalities. The criteria contemplated under Section 6(3) for determining the number of wards remained the same, even though the minimum and maximum wards were changed. However, even after re-ascertaining the number of wards in the light of the amendment brought in as per Ext.P3, there is no change in the number of wards in the 2 nd respondent Municipality and accordingly, Ext.P4 notification was issued by the Government fixing the number of seats in the 2 nd respondent Municipality as 33 which remained the same as that of the number mentioned in 2015 notification. As mentioned above, section 69(1) contemplates division of the Municipality into many wards as there are number of seats notified under section 6. In this case, there is no change in the number of seats and the delimitation exercise for the said number of wards was already carried out in the year 2015 when the 2 nd respondent -Municipality was formed. 13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly based on the proviso to section 69(1), which contemplates that the population of each ward in a Municipality shall, as far as practicable, be equal. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government constituted the 3 rd respondent Commission as per Ext.P5 by clearly declaring the purpose for such constitution, as for carrying out the delimitation for all local level institutions. Therefore, it was obligatory for the 3 rd respondent Commission to carry out the said exercise, irrespective of the question whether there is any change in the number of seats. According to the petitioners, since the intention of the government was as mentioned above, the 3 rd respondent Commission could not have taken a decision not to carry out such exercise in respect of Local Self Government Institutions where there is no change in number of seats. According to the petitioners, since the intention of the government was as mentioned above, the 3 rd respondent Commission could not have taken a decision not to carry out such exercise in respect of Local Self Government Institutions where there is no change in number of seats. It was also contended that, there is no provision that enables the 3 rd respondent Commission to take such a decision under the Kerala Municipality Act or the Delimitation Commission for the Kerala Local Self Government Institution Rules, 2005. It is also to be noted in this regard that, the learned Special Govt. Pleader also made clear that, while constituting the 3 rd respondent Commission as per Ext.P5, they intended to carry out the delimitation in all the Local Self Government Institutions. It was also pointed out that the notification for constituting the 3 rd respondent Commission for the above purpose was published on 14.6.2024, whereas the amendment altering the minimum and maximum number of wards was brought in only on 09.07.2024 as per Ext.P3. Therefore, it was pointed out that, at the time when the notification for the constitution of the 3 rd respondent Commission was published, there was no change in the number of seats, but yet in Ext.P5 notification, the requirement to carry out the delimitation for all the Local Self Government Institutions were insisted. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the lack of change in the number of seats cannot have any consequences, as far as the obligation of the 3 rd respondent to carry out the delimitation exercise is concerned. 14. However, I am not at all impressed with the aforesaid arguments. Even if it is accepted that, the Government intended to carry out the said exercise in all the Local Self Government Institutions, irrespective of the question whether there is increase/decrease in the number of seats, the question that arises is whether the Government can authorise the Delimitation Commission to carry out an exercise unless there are changes in the population data or the number of seats. It is to be noted that, as observed above, Section 69(1) of the Municipality Act contemplates for division of the Municipalities into wards based on the number of seats notified under Section 6 alone. It is to be noted that, as observed above, Section 69(1) of the Municipality Act contemplates for division of the Municipalities into wards based on the number of seats notified under Section 6 alone. As far as the proviso to Section 69(1) is concerned, even though the same contemplates that the population of each ward in the Municipality shall be equal as far as practicable, the same by itself cannot be the sole reason or the ground to warrant the delimitation exercise. This is because, the stipulations in the proviso are to be carried out when a process of delimitation is warranted or necessitated on account of the events referred to in the main section, viz. Section 69(1). In other words, the criteria mentioned in the proviso cannot be taken as an independent ground to insist for a delimitation process, in cases where no circumstances as envisaged in the main section ie. Section 69(1) is in existence. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in S. Sundaram Pillai and Others v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Others [AIR 1985 SC 582 ] that, the well established rule of interpretation of a proviso is that, a proviso may have three separate functions. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something within the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. In other words, a proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at naught the real object of the main enactment. A proviso to a section is not independent of the section calling for independent consideration or construction detached from the construction to be placed on the main section as it is merely subsidiary to the main section and is to be construed in the light of the section itself as held in Ambattu Gopalakrishnan v. Asst. Registar, Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad & Others [AIR 1998 Ker 63]. Therefore, in the light of the above principles, the only conclusion possible is that, to decide whether a delimitation exercise is necessary or authorised as per law, what is relevant is to find out whether the circumstances mentioned in section 69(1), the main section, are in existence. 16. Registar, Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad & Others [AIR 1998 Ker 63]. Therefore, in the light of the above principles, the only conclusion possible is that, to decide whether a delimitation exercise is necessary or authorised as per law, what is relevant is to find out whether the circumstances mentioned in section 69(1), the main section, are in existence. 16. To find out whether the events contemplated under the main section are in existence, an examination of section 6 of the Municipality Act is also necessary. This is because, section 6 is the provision that deals with the power of the Government to carry out the delimitation exercise and the circumstances under which the said power has to be invoked. Section 6 (1) provides for notification of the total number of seats of the Councillors in the Municipality based on the population as per the criteria specified in sub-section (3). Sub section (2) to Section 6 enables the Government to vary the total number of seats fixed as per sub section (1), after publishing the relevant data according to each census. Thus, when the Government fixes the total number of seats based on the population as per the census already published, it can be re-visited when new census data is published. Yet another situation where the delimitation process is permissible is under sub-section 3, when there is a change in criteria for determining the total number of seats and a consequential change in the number. This is because, as per Section 6 (1), the total number of seats is to be determined based on the population by following the criteria fixed in Section 6 (3). Therefore, when there are consequential changes in the number of seats due to changes in criteria specified in sub-section (3), the Government can order delimitation. The power of the Government to carry out the delimitation consequent upon the change in criteria under section 6(3) has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor [ 2025 KHC OnLine 236 ] . Thus, apart from the circumstances referred to above, there are no other situations contemplated in any of the Constitutional or statutory provisions to enable the Government to carry out the said exercise. Thus, apart from the circumstances referred to above, there are no other situations contemplated in any of the Constitutional or statutory provisions to enable the Government to carry out the said exercise. Therefore, even if the Government mentions in Ext.P5, to carry out the delimitation to all the Local Self Government Institutions, so long as, the circumstances which warrant a delimitation as contemplated under Section 6 r/w section 69 of the Municipality Act are not in existence, neither the Government nor the 3 rd respondent-Commission can carry out the exercise of delimitation. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, once the Government decides to conduct delimitation in all the Institutions, it is not open for the 3 rd respondent Commission to take a decision otherwise, is also not appears to be sustainable. This is because, as observed above, such delimitation is contemplated only in the circumstances mentioned in Section 6(1) read with Section 69(1) alone, and evidently, no such circumstances are in exercise. 18. Moreover, the stipulation in Ext.P5 to carry out the delimitation in all the Institutions can only be treated as a general instruction issued to the 3 rd respondent-Commission. The mere stipulation as above, will not take away the power of the Delimitation Commission to examine whether there exists circumstances mentioned in Section 69(1) read with Section 6 that warrants a delimitation exercise in a particular Municipality. The Government does not have a case that, while publishing Ext.P5 notification there was data before them that necessitated delimitation exercise in all the Institutions. The Government also could not point out any defects in the delimitation process carried out in the year, 2015 so as to warrant a revisit of the division of wards. Therefore, under no circumstances, the general directions in Ext.P5 can be treated as instructions that take away the powers vested upon the Delimitation Commission to examine whether the circumstances contemplated in Section 69(1) read with Section 6, are in existence for conducting a delimitation. In this case, the 3 rd respondent-Commission exercised that power and found that, with respect to certain Local Self Government Institutions, no delimitation is necessary, as there are no changes in the number of wards. This is a decision that the 3 rd respondent is competent and empowered to take, being an independent body created to ensure a fair and transparent delimitation process. 19. This is a decision that the 3 rd respondent is competent and empowered to take, being an independent body created to ensure a fair and transparent delimitation process. 19. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent also brought the attention of this Court to the subtle difference in the stipulations relating to the Panchayats and Municipalities as contemplated under Art. 243 C and 243 R of the Constitution of India, respectively. It is to be noted that, Art. 243C deals with the constitution of Panchayats, and the proviso to the said provision contemplates 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 it is practicable be the same throughout the State. However, such a stipulation is absent in Art.243 R, which deals with the composition of Municipalities, which is very conspicuous. Even though the requirement to have equal population in all wards in a Municipality as far as practicable, is contemplated, the same is included as a proviso to Section 69(1) of the Municipality Act. This Court has already found that such a requirement cannot be the sole reason for carrying out the delimitation, but it is a matter to be taken into account when a delimitation is conducted on account of the circumstances contemplated under section 6(1) read with Section 69(1) of the Municipality Act. Therefore, as far as the Municipalities are concerned, the requirement of equal distribution of population is not a Constitutional mandate as in the case of a Panchayat, but it is a statutory requirement as contemplated in proviso to section 69(1). This is also a crucial aspect which is to be taken into account while considering the powers of the Government or the Delimitation Commission, for carrying out the delimitation exercise. 20. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, on account of various reasons, there could be changes in the distribution of population among the wards in the Municipality and therefore to address the same, a delimitation process has to initiated even if there is no change in the number of wards or in the change in the population data. However, as observed above, so long as the requirement of delimitation is confined to the circumstances as referred to above, the said contention cannot be accepted. The stipulation in the proviso to section 69(1) is confined to the situation when a regular delimitation process is being carried out. Thus, It is to be reiterated in the light of the above observations that, the change in the distribution of population among the wards by itself is not a ground that necessitates a delimitation process for the Municipalities and therefore, an exercise to find out whether there is any such change of distribution and to take a decision whether the delimitation is to be carried out or not, is therefore futile, unwanted and not authorised. Hence, the 3 rd respondent-Commission cannot be compelled to carry out such exercise. 21. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that, Ext.P5 notification contemplating delimitation for all the Institutions, was published even before the publication of notification of amendment changing the number of seats. Therefore, it was contended that, the Government intended to carry out the delimitation exercise even without any change in the number of seats. While considering the said question, first of all it is to be noted that, the period between Ext.P5 and P3 notifications is very short. To be precise, Ext.P5 was published on 14.06.2024 and Ext.P3 notification was published on 09.07.2024. Apparently, the delayed publication of Ext P3 notification was due to the legal formalities to be followed being an amendment to the statutory provision. Therefore, in all probabilities, even while Ext.P5 notification was published, a change in the number of seats was under contemplation. Therefore, the said reason highlighted by the petitioner alone cannot be a ground to conclude that, the Government intended to carry out the exercise irrespective of the change in the number of seats. Moreover, this Court has already found that, the Government cannot carry out the said exercise in the absence of any events as contemplated under Section 69(1) r/w section 6 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Therefore, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. In such circumstances, after considering all the contentions and examining the Constitutional as well as statutory provisions, I find that, none of the reliefs sought in this writ petition are legally sustainable and therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed.