Mr. Shiva Madhu and Ors @APPELLANT@Hash State of Karnataka and Ors

I. THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITIONS

The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.30543-30545/2018 have sought for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the notification dated 23.4.2018 published in the Official Gazette on 23.4.2018 vide Annexure-H bearing

NO.NaAE 69 MLR 2017 passed by R-1.

b) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondents Dated 27.3.2018 bearing no. MuNiC(1) staff C.R-349/2017-18 vide

Annexure-G.Â

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to carry out the delimitation of 65 wards in the Mysuru City Corporation in terms of the

Guidelines vide Annexure-A dated 18.8.2006 passed by respondent no.1 and vide Annexure-B dated 15.2.2014 bearing no. UDD4 MLR 2014 and

Annexure-C dated 3.11.2016 bearing no. NAAE 119 MLR 2016.

The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.29858-29862/2018 have sought for the following reliefs:Â

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notification bearing Order No. NAE 57 MLR 2017 dated 28.12.2017 passed by Respondent

No.1 vide Annexure-C;

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to conduct the de-limitation exercise afresh based on the population figures of 2011 and

in compliance of Section 21(2) of the act.

The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.31438-31442/2018 have sought for the following reliefs:Â

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notification bearing order No. NAE 57 MLR 2017 dated 28.12.2017 passed by Respondent

No.1 vide Annexure-D;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to conduct the de-limitation exercise afresh based and increase the number of wards

based on the population figures of 2011 in compliance of Section 21(2) of the act.

 4. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.32989/2018 & W.P Nos.32990-991/2018 have sought for the following reliefs:

a) Issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification bearing No. Na.A.E. 69 MLR 2017,

Bengaluru dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure-A) issued by the 1st Respondent, in so far as not determining the layouts which have been handed over by the

4th Respondent Mysore Urban Development Authority as per O.M No. MY.N.PRA/AA/KBH/2016-17 dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure-C) more

particularly not determining the Preethi and Sai Layout in the impugned notification for any of the wards to the election for the office of councilors in

the 3rd Respondent Mysore City Corporation;Â

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to determine the layouts which have been

handed over by the 4th Respondent Mysore Urban Development Authority as per O.M dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure-C) more particularly not

determining the Preethi and Sai Layout in any of the wards as required under Section 21 of the KMC Act.

The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.33432-33435/2018 2018 have sought for the following reliefs:Â

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the delimitation of wards at Annexure-A dated 23.4.2018 in impugned Gazette Notification bearing

No.NAAE 69 MLR 2017 issued by Respondent No.1.

b) Issue a direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner at Annexure-C in respect of impugned notification at

Annexure-A and direct to restore the previous delimitation of wards done based on the 2011 census.

II. FACTS OF THE CASES

The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging different notifications of delimitation of wards issued by the State Government on the basis of

2011 census figures in respect of Mysuru City and Tumakuru City Municipal Corporations, declaring 65 wards at Mysuru and 35 wards at Tumakuru.

In W.P No.32989/2018, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notification dated 23.04.2018 issued by the first respondent insofar as not

determining the layouts which have been handed over by the 4th respondent - Mysuru Urban Development Authority (‘MUDA’ for short),

more particularly not determining Preethi and Sai layouts in the impugned notification for any of the wards to the election for the office of councilors in

the 3rd respondent â€" Mysuru City Corporation and for directing the 1st respondent â€" State Government to determine the layouts which have been

handed over by the

4th respondent - MUDA as per the Official Memorandum dated 15.7.2016, more particularly Preethi an Sai layouts in any of the wards as required

under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘KMC Act’ for short).

It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.30543-30545/2018 that in respect of delimitation of wards, no rules were framed as mandated under

Section 21(3) of the KMC Act. However, in respect of urban local bodies, the Government has formulated various guidelines. Guideline No.9 clearly

and categorically states that all wards shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to the

physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience. Further Guideline No.15 clearly and categorically states that the Deputy

Commissioners of the concerned districts shall prepare delimitation proposals and furnish such proposals to the Government for publishing the draft

notification. It is further stated that the first respondent - State Government, Urban Development Department has drawn the proceedings on 15.2.2014

with respect to delimitation of wards of urban local bodies in terms of Sections 13 and 352(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The MUDA

has formed various new layouts and has approved various private layouts. As a result of the same, MUDA handed over various layouts to the 3rd

respondent - Mysuru City Corporation on 15.7.2016. Accordingly on 3.11.2016, the Respondent No.1 issued a Circular regarding delimitation of

wards. It is submitted that the election to the Respondent No.3 is due to be held in September-2018. In view of impending elections, Respondent No.1

issued a notification dated 8.2.2018 calling for objections from the general public within 15 days from the date of publication delimiting 65 wards. The

petitioners and one Mr.Sundarkumar, the President of Devaraj Block Congress Committee, Mysuru City filed objections to draft notification stating

that delimitation was not in conformity with the Act. On 14.6.2018 the Karnataka State Election Commission filed Public Interest Litigation in W.P.

No.5697/2018 before this Court and sought for direction to the State Government to issue final notification of delimitation of wards and in the said writ

petition, joint memo was filed by the State Election Commission as well as the State Government stating that final notification would be issued by

12.7.2018. Accordingly on 19.6.2018 Respondent No.1 issued notification notifying reservation of seats to 65 wards of the Respondent No.3 â€

Mysuru City Corporation. Therefore present writ petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for.

It is the case of the petitioners in 29858-29862/2018 and 31438-31442/2018 that the State Government issued notification upgrading Respondent

No.2 â€" Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation to Tumakur City Corporation on 20.12.2013. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 issued draft notification

of wards on 20.6.2017 as per 2011 census figures. It is further stated that on 28.12.2017 Respondent No.1 issued final notification of wards by altering

boundaries of the existing wards for the upcoming elections. On 3.2.2018 Respondent No.2 addressed letter to Respondent No.3 requesting him to

undertake the delimitation of wards as per 2011 census figures. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 has issued draft notification for reservation of 35

wards coming within the jurisdiction of Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation. Hence these writ petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for.

It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos.32989/2018 & 32990-32991/2018 that in the year 2007, the developers in pursuance of layout plan

approval given by respondent - MUDA has formed layout in accordance with layout plan and had sold respective sites to purchasers. However, the

said layout has been looked after by MUDA and further for the purpose of elections, the said layout comes under Grama Panchayath jurisdiction as it

was part of Chamundeshwari Legislative Assembly Constituency. The respondent â€" MUDA in pursuance of fully development of certain layouts as

the said layouts come well within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysuru City Corporation, has taken decision to hand over said layouts to the respondent

- Corporation on 30.6.2016. Accordingly on 15.7.2016, the Respondent - MUDA has issued Official Memorandum indicating that for the lands which

have been transferred or handed over to the respondent Corporation, issuance of katha and plan sanctions have to be made by respondent -

Corporation. When things stood thus, Respondent No.1 issued draft notification notifying schedules for the determination of wards for the elections to

the Councilors of the respondent - Corporation on 8.2.2018. Accordingly Respondent No.1 issued final notification on 23.4.2018 determining wards, in

which petitioners layouts were not included in any of the wards. The petitioners have filed objections seeking to include the said layouts in the

territorial jurisdiction of ward Nos. 64 and 65. But, the same has not been done. Hence the petitioners are before this court for the relief sought for.

III. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE

The State Government filed common objections in these petitions and contended that the prayers sought in the writ petitions are not maintainable

and liable to the dismissed. It is contended that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners for the relief sought for, are not maintainable in view of the

constitutional mandate and bar of jurisdiction as contemplated under the provisions of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. Therefore it is

contended that no interference can be made by the court either in the delimitation process or in the election process as the Bar is mandatory. It is

further contended that in view of the bar contained under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, the validity of any law relating to delimitation of

constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be examined by this court under 243ZH(a) of the Constitution. It is further

contended that the question of delimitation and allotment of a particular seat of President and Vice President in a particular constituency of

Municipality cannot be gone into, so as to allow the judicial scrutiny of the same by the court passing the said bar of jurisdiction. The only remedy

available to the petitioners under the Constitution is by way of Election Petition before the Competent Authority or the Tribunal after the elections are

concluded as contemplated under Clause (b) of Article 243ZG. It is further contended that the intention of the constitutional bar is very clear i.e., to

provide insulated and free from Court interference of election process. Any interference by the Courts or law at the beginning or during the process of

election is bound to defeat the said avowed purpose of the constitutional mandate.

It is further contended that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies

cannot be questioned before the courts. It is specifically contended by the State that the respondents while doing delimitation exercise, have followed

guidelines issued by the Government of Karnataka as well as the provisions of the KMC Act. The guidelines pertaining to ward population has also

been adhered to. It is to be noted that in the guidelines for delimitation issued as per the Government Order No.UDD MLR 2014, Bengaluru dated

15.2.2014, Guideline No.4 is clear that each ward in the urban body shall be so delimited that the population of all wards shall, so far as practicable, be

the same throughout the particular urban local body and the same has been complied with. It is further stated that the respondent â€" State have also

followed guidelines viz., enumerated block of 2011 census, guidelines issued by the Government dated 18.8.2006, 15.2.2014 and 3.11.2016 and ensured

that the enumerated blocks should not be divided while maintaining population to be between 10,000 to 13,000 with the permitted 10% variation.

It is specifically contended that in respect of wards at Mysuru, the population has been maintained. In sofar as Tumakuru, in most of the wards, it

is ensured that the population has been maintained between 10,000 and 13,000, but due to scarcity of population in some wards and the area being

wide in some areas and the population being less, there is variation. It is further contended that the delimitation notification has been done in

conformity with the KMC Act, notifications and Circulars issued by the Government from time to time. The respondents have published draft

notification of the proposed delimitation for the benefit of public through gazette notification, daily newspapers, both in Kannada and English languages,

which include indicating the display of draft delimitation of wards in the offices that may be specified and called for objections and suggestions from

public. Wide publicity has also been given to the said draft notification by the Deputy Commissioners of districts through Radio, T.V and newspapers.

Objections have been called for and after considering the objections and suggestions, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to finalize the

delimitation.

The respondent â€" State further contended that based on the 2011 census figures and Sections 7(2)(a) and 21 of the KMC Act, guidelines are

issued on 15.2.2014 and 13.11.2016 for the purpose of delimitation. Therefore the impugned final notifications issued on 23.4.2018 for delimitation of

wards to Mysuru City Corporation is according to the guidelines and the KMC Act. It is further contended that delimitation of wards is a humongous

process and as far as practicable wards are recognized in such a way, so as to maintain they are geographically compact keeping in mind physical

features, accessibility and communication facility to public communication. The objections of the petitioners were heard in detail by the Deputy

Commissioner concerned and passed orders accordingly. Further, the State Government contended that the petitioners have approached Court with

unclean hands without producing documents and suppressing the facts that the Deputy Commissioner has considered the objections and has followed

the guidelines of the Government. The only intention of the petitioners is to stall the democratic process of election and the same has to be nipped at

the bud by this Court. Therefore sought for dismissal of writ petitions.

IV. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT â€" COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION

The Respondent No.3 - Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation filed the objections and the additional statement of objections in W.P. Nos.30543-

30545/2018 and contended that Respondent NO.1 has published draft notification of delimitation of wards in respect of Mysuru City Corporation on

8.2.2018 and called for objections to be filed within 15 days. The draft notifications were put up in all the Corporation wards and also in the office of

the Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation and also in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have filed their objections. The said

objections were considered and all the objectors who were present were also heard on 27.3.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner in presence of the

Commissioner, Mysuru City Corporation and Project Officer, District Urban Development Cell and thereafter has forwarded his report to the

Secretary, Urban Development Department. The letter dated 27.3.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-G reveals that the objections

were considered and the persons who were present were also heard. It is further stated that the guidelines issued by the State Government have been

followed and certain criteria is followed in the process viz., (i) 2011 Census population strength of 10,000 to 13,000 with permitted variation of 10% for

each ward (ii) enumerated blocks of 2011 census have been adopted in the delimitation exercise (iii) that enumerated blocks should not be divided

while maintaining the population between 10,000 to 13,000 with the permitted 10% variation. The present delimitation of wards facilitates in

maintaining and following the same electoral rolls of the voters complied by the Election Commission for the Corporation elections also. It is further

contended that Table - Annexure-R4 to the additional statement of objections clearly depicts the population in the earlier delimitation of wards and the

present delimitation of wards the allegations that in view of the Mandate of Article 243T of the Constitution of India, rotation of seats should have

been done without abolishing the old wards and new wards should not have been demarcated or delimited till the cycle is completed and the authorities

should have adjusted the population keeping in the old wards in existence, are untenable. It is further contended that the Table â€" Annexure R4 filed

along with the additional statement of objections clearly depicts the population in the earlier delimitation of wards and the present delimitation of wards

and while preparing the delimitation, the Corporation has followed the enumerated blocks and uniformity in the population for each ward is maintained

with 10% variation, which is permissible. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

V. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT â€" TUMAKURU CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

In Writ Petition Nos.32989/2018 & W.P. Nos.32990-32991/2018, Respondent No.3 â€" Mysuru City Corporation filed objections, wherein it is

specifically stated

in paragraph 4 that the newly formed layout in the outgrowth area of the Corporation was not included in 2011 census. Some of the layouts were

formed and developed post 2011 census and hence the said layouts are not shown in the enumerated blocks. The area has been developed and people

are residing in those layouts since 2013-14 onwards. However Respondent NO.3 while preparing draft/proposal of delimitation of wards has included

all those wards which have been handed over to the Corporation and said new areas are included in Ward Nos.65 and 46. Since some layouts are not

included in the census enumerated blocks, their layout may not be shown in the notification, but their names are found in voters’ list.

The Mysuru City Corporation officials have distributed Voter ID cards in newly included areas of the Corporation wards as per Annexure-R2. It is

categorically stated that in the event the names of petitioners or their neighbours are not found in the Voters’ list for the Corporation elections,

they are even to this date entitled to make necessary applications in the summary revision of electoral rolls which is an ongoing process till the

parliament elections. If their names are not found in Grama Panchayath voters’ list, the Corporation officials will verify with the Revenue

Inspector and Booth level officers and recommend their names to be included in the Voters’ list for the Corporation elections. Therefore sought

for dismissal of the petitions.

The Respondent No.2 â€" Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation filed objections in W.P. Nos.29858-29862/2018 contended that the petitioner

nos.1 and 5 are members of Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation who were elected in the year 2013. It is stated that erstwhile Tumakuru City

Council was upgraded as Tumakuru City Corporation vide notification dated 20.12.2013 and after upgradation, the wards remained the same. The

Deputy Commissioner issued draft notification regarding delimitation of wards in Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation area on 22.2.2017 inviting

objections from general public. However, the said notification was withdrawn in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to

issue such notification. Subsequently, the State Government vide notification dated 20.6.2017 called upon public to file objections and subsequently

final notification issued on 28.12.2017 based on 2011 census figures retaining 35 wards. It is further contended that the writ petitions are filed

questioning the notification dated 28.12.2017 after lapse of more than six months, that too at the fag end of the finalization of categories in respect of

the wards pertaining to Tumakuru city and therefore writ petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that writ

petitions are not maintainable in view of the fact that Section 21(1-A) of the KMC Act prohibits entertaining any proceedings before any Court of law.

Further, the delimitation of wards cannot be called in question before any Court of law in view of the bar contained under Article 243ZG of the

Constitution of India. Objections were called for from general public by giving wide publication. The Deputy Commissioner received 37 objections

relating to delimitation of wards. The State Government after considering the objections, issued the final notification on 28.12.2017 determining the

wards and its boundaries for the Tumakuru City Corporation. Therefore the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petitions. It is further contended that

Ward No.11 was having the population of 18344 and after the delimitation, the population is now 9,304. The population in excess of 9,304 has been

distributed among Ward Nos.12, 13 and 28 after delimitation. Similarly, Wad No.7 was having the population of 6,754 and after delimitation, the

population is raised to 7,070. Therefore it is clear that the respondents have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and factors and the final

notification came to be issued on 28.12.2017. The population of wards in Tumakuru City Corporation varies from 5500 to 12500. If the average

population figures are considered, the variation would be plus or minus 3,000. Therefore, delimitation notification issued on 28.12.2017 is absolutely in

accordance with the statutory provisions of the KMC Act. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

Sri D.N. Nanjundareddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.30543-545/2018 contended that in view of the provisions

of Section 21 of the KMC Act, the Mysuru City divided into 65 wards and as per sub section (2) of section 21 of KMC Act, the population of wards

shall so far as practicable be the same throughout the City. He further contended that Clauses 4,5 and 6 of the Government guidelines dated 15.2.2014

contemplate that each ward in the urban local body shall be so delimited that the population of all the wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same

throughout the particular urban local body; All wards shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall

be had to the physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience; An area within a ward shall not extend to other wards, such that a

ward does not have an enclave/island within it of certain areas belonging to another ward having no contiguity to other areas of the concerned ward.

He further contended that the delimitation of wards must be geographically compact, that is to say, it should be round, oval, square or rectangle. He

further contended that the population of each of the wards is not uniform. For example, the population of Ward NO.1 is 9,292 and population of Ward

No.54 is 31,616 in respect of Mysuru as per Annexure M â€" Population census of India 2011. He invited attention of the Court to the objections filed

by Respondent No.3 â€" Mysuru City Corporation, wherein it is admitted that in the present delimitation of wards, the population for each ward is

maintained between 10,000 and 13,000 with 10% variation. He would further contend that as per Annexure-K issued by the MUDA dated 15.7.2016,

16 new layouts formed not assigned any wards and it will affect the reservation also. He further contended that the petitioners have not challenged

law under Section 21 of the KMC Act and they are only challenging executive action of the State Government as per the impugned final notification

dated 23.4.2018 (Annexure-H) and the said notification cannot be termed as law. He further contended that Article 243ZG of the Constitution is not

applicable to these cases. Therefore writ petitions are maintainable

Sri D.N. Nanjundareddy, learned senior counsel further contended that Ward nos.1,2,3, 5,12,22,24,27,28,54,59 were determined by the respondents

as not practicable in terms of provisions of Section 21(2) of the KMC Act. He further contended that ward map - Annexure-J is in utter violation of

the provisions of Section 21 of the KMC Act r/w Government guidelines dated 15.2.2014. Therefore, the impugned notification cannot be sustained

and liable to be quashed. He further contended that the delimitation of wards must be geographically compact that is to say, it should be round, oval,

square or rectangle. The respondent No.2 whimsfully and fancifully demarcated boundaries as could be seen from delimitation map. It is against

mandatory provisions of Section 21 of the KMC Act and the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further contended that Annexure-G issued

by the authorities is contrary to the principles of natural justice because no notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was provided. Therefore

he sought to quash the impugned notification by allowing the writ petitions.

In support of his arguments, he relied upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARATI REDDY vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in (2017)12 SCC 61 (paragraphs 4 and 11) and 2007 SCC Online Delhi 365, (paragraphs 12, 17 and 36).

Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.29858-29862/2018 and 31438-31442/2018 contended that

the Commissioner, Tumakuru City Municipal Corporation addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to undertake the delimitation

of wards of Corporation as per 2011 census figures, but while issuing final notification dated 28.12.2017, the number of wards was fixed at 35 based

on 2011 census, but however boundaries of wards were altered but no population is mentioned. He further contended that the population of wards is

not uniform. For example, as per Annexure-D, the population of Ward Nos.9, 30, 10 and 32 is 5329, 12,786, 11,126 and 12,025 respectively. Therefore

population of wards mentioned is not in terms of the provisions of Section 21(2) of the KMC Act and it is also not practicable. He further contended

that the population allotted to each ward shall be in terms of Section 21(1)(b) of the KMC Act. He also contended that in view of paragraph-10 of the

statement of objections filed by the State Government, the writ petitions have to be allowed. He also contended that the petitioners have not

challenged either law or allotment of seats. He further contended that Article 243ZA of the Constitution deals with elections to the Municipalities and

the petitioners have not come either under Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India or section 21 of the KMC Act. He

further contended that the impugned notification issued by the respondents is not an authority of law under Articles 265, 300A, 326 and 329 of the

Constitution and the said Articles are outside the chapter of fundamental rights.

Therefore the writ petitions are maintainable and sought to allow the writ petitions.

In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions:Â

CIT vs. MCDOWELL AND CO. LTD., {(2009)10 SCC 765}, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that notification is not law and

hence writ petition is maintainable.

M/s BISHAMBER DAYAL CHANDRAMOHAN vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS {AIR 1982 SC 133} (paragraphs 41 and 42), wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the impugned notification therein is not in consonance with Section 21 of the KMC Act.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. ASHOK KUMAR {(2000)8 SCC 216} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with

interference under Section 329 of the Constitution of India.

BABU VER4GHESE vs. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA {(1999)3 SCC 422} (paragraph 31), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

that if the manner of doing a particular action is prescribed under the statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.Â

Dictionary meaning of the word, ‘ practicable’ is also referred.

Sri Amruth Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.33432-33435/2018 has adopted the arguments of Sri Jayakumar S. Patil,

learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners.

Sri R.Sarathy, learned counsel for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.32989/2018 & W.P. Nos.32990-32991/2018 contended that the petitioners are

residents of Preethi and Sai layouts in Mysuru City and the said layouts have not been included in the notification while forming wards. Therefore he

submits that the impugned action of the respondents not including the layouts where petitioners are residing, cannot be sustained and respondents

cannot deprive the petitioners or residents of Preethi and Sai layouts when the said layouts come within the purview of Krishnaraja Legislative

Assembly and their names have been included in Karnataka Legislative Assembly Constituency electoral roll. Though the layouts which were held to

be integral part of Mysuru City come within the purview of the 2nd respondent â€" Corporation, in the impugned notification the 1st respondent

has failed to determine the said layouts within the territorial schedules of either under Ward No.64 or Ward No.65 and thus deprived the residents of

the said layouts from exercising their franchise in the ensuing elections to the 2nd respondent â€" Corporation. Therefore the impugned notification

dated 23.4.2018 issued is perse illegal and ultra vires of sections 7 and 21 of the KMC Act. Therefore he sought to allow the petitions.

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL & LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Per contra, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State contended that the very writ petitions filed by the

petitioners challenging the notification issued by the respondents for delimitation of wards are not maintainable in view of the dictum of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANUGRAH NARAIAN SINGH & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in

(1996)6 SCC 303. He would further contend that every Municipality unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue

for a period of five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Admittedly the election for Municipal Corporations in the State of

Karnataka is imminent to be conducted on or before 05.09.2018 in terms of the mandatory provisions of Article 243U of the Constitution of India. He

would further contend that the impugned notifications issued for delimitation of wards is a law relating to delimitation of Constituencies. Therefore the

present writ petitions filed are not maintainable before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in view of the bar imposed by

Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot stall the election process. He would further contend that the delimitation of wards is

made by the Mysuru Mahanagara Palike on the basis of 2011 census strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the KMC Act. He would

further contend that the objections filed by the petitioners to the draft notification in respect of Mysuru have been considered and mistakes have been

rectified. He would further contend that in respect of Tumakuru, the petitioners have not filed objections to the draft notifications and final notification

issued as long back as on 28.12.2017. Admittedly the present writ petitions are filed during the midst of election process, that too, when the Election

Commission is about to issue the calendar of events. Infact, the Election Commission issued calendar of events on 02.08.2018.

Therefore, he sought to dismiss all the writ petitions.

In support of his contentions, learned Advocate General relied upon the following judgments.Â

KISHANSINGH TOMAR vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTEHRS {(2006) 8 SCC 352

…Paragraphs5, 14, 19, 20 and 22} (Constitution Bench Judgment).

STATE OF U.P. vs. PRADHAN SANGH KSHETRA SAMITI {1995 SUPPL SCC 305 .. Paragraph-45}Â

SURENDRA BABU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA {ILR 1996 KAR 1797… paragraph â€" 9}Â

PROFESSOR B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA { ILR 1999 KAR 2513 …para 22}

SMT. LATHA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA {2017(2) Kar.LJ 421} (Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 27)

Sri K.N.Phaneendra, learned counsel for the State Election Commission while adopting the arguments of the learned Advocate General for the

State contended that, the elections to the 29 City Municipal Councils, 53 Municipalities and 23 Town Panchayats is imminent in view of

the constitutional mandate of Article 243U of the Constitution of India and it is the duty of the State Election Commission to conduct elections within

the time under the provisions of Article 243K of the Constitution of India and because few petitioners are before the Court, elections to Municipal

Corporations to be conducted imminently, cannot be stalled. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petitions.

Smt. Geethadevi M. Papanna along with M.C. Jayakeerthi, learned counsel for the Mysuru City Corporation contended that enumerated blocks of

2011 census have been adopted in the exercise of delimitation of wards and that should not be divided while maintaining population between 10,000 to

13,000 with the permitted 10% variation. She further contended that the contiguity, geographical features, connectivity, means of communication and

public convenience were also kept in mind while effecting delimitation. A perusal of the delimitation map of Mysuru City Corporation depicts that no

ward is an island. Since the Corporation has to follow 2011 census, the blocks enumerated as identified by the Department of Statistical Survey of

India Census division has been adopted which is an objective criteria. A perusal of Annexure R-4 to the additional statement of objections filed by

Respondent No.3 â€" Mysuru City Corporation, reveals the population earlier to delimitation of wards and after delimitation of wards. While preparing

delimitation of wards, the Corporation has followed enumerated wards as identified by census. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the petitions while

adopting the arguments of learned Advocate General.

Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel for the Tumakuru City Corporation while adopting the arguments of the learned Advocate General contended

that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the fact that Section 21(1) of the KMC Act prohibits entertaining of any proceedings before any

court of law, in relation to the notification issued under Section 21(1) of the KMC Act, 1976. He would further contend that the reliefs sought in the

present writ petitions are not maintainable in view of Article 243ZG of Constitution of India. He further contended that the draft notification was

widely published and the general public were provided an opportunity to file objections. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any objections to the

draft notification and therefore it is not open for them to assail the final notification dated 28.12.2017 by filing Writ Petitions in the month of July-2018.

Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.

In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgmentsÂ

MEGHARAJ KOTHARI vs. DELIMITATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS {AIR 1967 SC 669 … paragraphs 20,21, 24, 32,33}

ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENT OF MHOW….. vs. DELIMITATION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {2009 AIR

SCW 3424 .. paragraphs 24 and 25}

VIII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

In view of the above rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are:

(i) Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are maintainable in view of the constitutional mandate of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of

India?

(ii) Whether the petitioners have made out a case to interfere with the impugned final delimitation notifications, under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of these matters ?

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties to the lis.Â

IX. CONSIDERATION

The substance of the case of the petitioners is that, the delimitation of wards is contrary to the provisions of Section 21(2) of the KMC Act and not

practicable throughout the cities of Mysuru and Tumakuru and the delimitation of wards not contiguous and geographically each ward is not compact.

The population of each of the wards is not uniform. For example, the population of Ward Nos.1 and 54 of Mysuru is 9,292 and 31,616 respectively.

Similarly, the population of Ward Nos.9 and 30 of Tumakuru is 5,329 and 12,786 respectively. That is to say, it is contrary to the provisions of Section

21(2) of the KMC Act. It was further contended that, delimitation of wards was made without any basis and the same are in utter violation of Article

14 of Constitution of India. Notification issued is not an authority of law. Further, the petitioners have not challenged either law or allotment of seats.

Therefore, writ petitions are maintainable etc.,

It is the specific case of the respondents that the division of wards was made strictly in terms of provisions of Section 21 of the KMC Act and

some of the petitioners have not filed objections to the draft notification and elections are imminent. It is further case of the respondents that the

impugned notifications issued for delimitation of wards is a law relating to delimitation of Constituencies and hence the present writ petitions are not

maintainable before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in view of the bar imposed by Article 243ZG of the Constitution of

India and this Court cannot stall the election process. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

In view of the above, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Section 7 of KMC Act, 1976 which reads as under:

Constitution of the Corporation.-- (1) The Corporation shall consist of,-Â

(a) such number of elected councillors not being less than thirty and not more than two hundred as the Government, may by notification determine;

(b) not exceeding ten percent of the total number of councilors in the case of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and not more than five persons in

the case of other city corporations nominated by the Government from amongst the residents of the city,-

 (i) who are persons having special knowledge and experience in municipal administration or matters relating to health, town planning or education;

orÂ

(ii) who are social workers;

(c) the members of the Houses of People and the members of the State Legislative Assembly representing a part or whole of the city whose

constituencies lie within the city.Â

(d) the members of the Council of State and State Legislative Council who are registered as electors within the city:Â

Provided that the persons referred to in clause

(b) shall not have right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation.

(2) Seats shall be reserved in a corporation,-Â

(a) for the Scheduled Castes; and

(b) for the Scheduled Tribes: and 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 the corporation as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the city or of the Scheduled Tribes in the city bears to the

total population of the city.

(3) Such number of seats which shall as nearly as may be, one third of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in a corporation shall be

reserved for persons belonging to the Backward Classes;

Provided that out of the seats reserved under this sub-section, eighty percent of the total number of such seats shall be reserved for the persons falling

under category ""A"" and the remaining twenty percent of the seats shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ""B"":

Provided further that if no person falling under category ""A"" is available, the seats reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling

under category ""B"" and vice-versa.

Provided also that the number of seats so reserved for the Backward Classes under this sub-section shall be so determined, that the total number of

seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes under sub-Section (2) and the Backward Classes under this sub-section shall not exceed

fifty percent of the total number of seats in the City Corporation.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section and proviso to clause(b) of sub-section (1A) of section 10, categories ""A"" and ""B"" shall mean

categories ""A"" and ""B"" referred to in clause (1) of section 2.

(4) Not more than fifty percent of the seats reserved for each category of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward

Classes and those of the non-reserved seats to be filled by direct election in a corporation shall be reserved for women:

Provided that the seats reserved in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in a city.

(5) The Councillors referred to in clause (a) of sub-sections (1) shall be elected in the manner provided in this Act.

(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall be deemed to prevent the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward

Classes or Women from standing for election to the non-reserved seats.

A plain reading of the said provisions make it clear that the Corporation shall consist of (a) such number of elected councilors not being less than

thirty and not more than two hundred as the Government may, by notification determine; and (b) not exceeding ten percent of the total number of

Councillors in the case of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and not more than five persons in case of other City Corporations nominated by the

Government from amongst the residents of the city who are persons having special knowledge and experience in municipal administration or matters

relating to health, town planning or education or who are social workers. (c) The members of the House of People and the members of the State

Legislative Assembly representing a part or whole of the City whose constituencies lie within the city. (d) the members of the Council of State and

State Legislative Council who are registered as electors within the city ; Provided that the persons referred to in clause (b) of Section 7 shall not have

right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation.

Sub section (2) of Section 7 of the KMC Act prescribes that the seats shall be reserved in a Corporation for the Scheduled Castes and for the

Scheduled Tribes and the number of seats so reserved shall be as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by

direct election in the Corporation as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the city or of the Scheduled Tribes in the city bears to the total

population of the city.

Sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the KMC Act prescribes that such number of seats which shall as nearly as may be, one-third of the total number

of seats to be filled by direct election in a Corporation shall be reserved for persons belonging to the Backward classes; Provided that out of the seats

reserved under this sub-section, eighty percent of the total number of such seats shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘A’

and the remaining 20% of the seats shall be reserved for the persons falling under category B ; Provided further that if no person falling under

category ‘A’ is available, the seats reserved for the category shall also be filled by the persons falling under Category ‘B†and vice versa ;

Provided also that the number of seats so reserved for the Backward classes under this sub-section shall be so determined, that the total number of

seats reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes under sub section (2) and the backward classes under sub section (3) shall not exceed fifty

percent of total number of seats in the city corporations.

The explanation to Section 7 of the KMC Act prescribes that for the purpose of the said section and proviso to clause (b) of sub section (1A) of

section 10, categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ shall mean categories A and B referred to in clause (1) of Section 2 of the KMC Act.

Clause (4) of section 7 of the KMC Act prescribes that not more than fifty percent of the seats reserved for each category of persons belonging

to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes and those of the non reserved seats to be filled by direct election in a Corporation shall

be reserved for women; Provided that the seats reserved in sub section (2), (3) and (4) shall be allotted by rotation to the different wards in a city.

Sub section (5) of Section 7 prescribes that the councilors referred to clause (a) of sub section (1) shall be elected in the manner provided in the

KMC Act. Sub-Section (6) of Section 7 prescribes that nothing contained in sub sections (2),(3) and (4) shall be deemed to prevent the members of

the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes or women from standing for election to non reserved seats.

Section 8 of the KMC Act deals with term of office of the councilors which reads as under:Â

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the term of office of councillors,-Â

(i) directly elected at a general election shall be five years;Â

(ii)nominated by the Government under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, subject to the pleasure of the Government, be five years.Â

(2) The term of office of the councillors shall commence on the date appointed for the first meeting of the corporation.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where two thirds of the total number of councillors required to be elected have been elected, the

Corporation shall be deemed to have been duly constituted under this Act.Â

(4) If any casual vacancy occurs it shall be filled, as soon as may be, by the election of a person thereto. The person so elected shall hold office only

so long as the person in whose place he is elected would have held had the vacancy not occurred:

Provided that no election to fill a casual vacancy shall be held if the vacancy occurs within four months before the expiry by efflux of time of the term

of office of the councillors.

(5) A councillor may resign his office at any time by notice in writing addressed to the Mayor and delivered to him and such resignation shall take

effect from the date on which it is delivered.

A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that the term of the office of the councilors directly elected at a general election shall be five

years and the term of office of the Councillors nominated by the Government under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, subject to the

pleasure of the Government, be five years. Sub Section (2) of Section 8 prescribes that the term of office of councilors shall commence on the date

appointed for the first meeting of the Corporation. Sub Section (3) of Section 8 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, where

two-thirds of the total number of councilors required to be elected have been elected, the Corporation shall be deemed to have been duly constituted

under the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 prescribes that if any casual vacancy occurs it shall be filled, as soon as may be, by the election of a

person thereto. The person so elected shall hold office only so long as person in whose place he is elected would have held had the vacancy not

occurred ; Provided that no election to fill casual vacancy shall be held if vacancy occurs within four months before the expiry by efflux of time of the

term of office of the councilors.

Sub Section (5) of Section 8 prescribes that a councilor may resign his office at any time by notice in writing addressed to the Mayor and delivered

to him and such resignation shall take effect from the date on which it is delivered.

Chapter IV of the KMC Act deals with Election and Section 21 of Chapter IV deals with determination of wards, which reads as under:

Determination of 1 [wards], etc.--

(1) For purposes of elections Government shall, by notification, determine,-Â

(a) the [wards] into which the city shall be divided and the extent of each [wards];

           (b) the number of seats [alloted to each ward which shall be one];Â

(c) the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, [Backward Classes and women] and the [wards] in which such

seats shall be reserved.

 [1A) No notification under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any court of law;]Â

(2) The ratio between the number of councillors to be elected from each [ward] and the population of that [ward] shall so far as practicable be the

same throughout the city.

 (3) The State Government may make rules for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that for the purposes of elections Government shall, by notification, determine (a) the wards

into which city shall, be divided and the extent of each wards. (b) The number of seats allotted to each ward which shall be one, (c) the number of

seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women and the wards in which such seats shall be reserved.

Sub Section (1A) of Section 21 prescribes that no notification under sub Section (1) shall be called in question in any court of law.

Sub section (2) of Section 21 prescribes that the ratio between the number of Councillors to be elected from each ward and the population of that

ward shall so far as practicable be the same throughout the city. Sub section 3of Section 21 prescribes that the State Government may make rules for

the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2).Â

With a view to provide for setting up democratic institutions at the grass-root level by virtue of Seventy-fourth Amendment to the Constitution,

Part IX-A providing for establishment of the Municipalities was incorporated in the Constitution w.e.f 1.6.1993. The object of introducing Part IX A in

the Constitution of India was that in many States the local bodies were not working properly and the timely elections were not being held and the

nominated bodies were continuing for long periods. Election had been irregular and many times unnecessarily delayed or postponed and the elected

bodies had been superseded or suspended without adequate justification at the whims and fancies of the State authorities. The new provisions i.e.,

Articles 243P to 243ZG were added in the Constitution of India with a view to restore the rightful place in political governance for local bodies. It was

considered necessary to provide a constitutional status to such bodies and to ensure regular and fair conduct of election.Â

A contention was raised by the petitioners that the delimitation of wards was not properly effected by the respondent authorities in terms of the

provisions of Section 21 of KMC Act, especially provisions of sub Section (2) of Section 21 which prescribes that the ratio between the number of

Councillors from each ward and the population of that ward shall so far as practicable be the same throughout the city. But, the Table - Annexure R-4

to the additional statement of objections filed by the Mysuru City Corporation in W.P. Nos.30543-30545/2018 clearly depicts that the delimitation of

wards was done on the basis of population of Mysuru as per 2011 census. A careful perusal of Annexure-R4 â€" Table discloses the information of

delimitation of 65 wards, which clearly indicates that uniformity in the population for each ward is maintained with 10% variation and there is no

double population in any of the wards as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the division of wards was

made on the basis of population within Mysuru City Corporation as per 2011 census.

The population within the Mysuru City Corporation limits as per 2011 census document is 8,93,062 and the population of Mysuru including the

outer growth is 9,20,550 as per 2011 census. Outer growth area includes the layouts that are being developed by MUDA and others which is

approved by MUDA. The population has been divided and distributed to different wards following the Government guidelines and a perusal of table as

per Anenxure-R4 depicts the population in the earlier delimitation of wards and the present delimitation of wards. While preparing the delimitation, the

Corporation has followed enumerated blocks as identified by census. A perusal of the process of the delimitation to one of the wards would reveal

laborious process undertaken by the Corporation. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the delimitation of wards is not

practicable as contemplated in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the KMC Act, cannot be accepted.

Article 243Q of Constitution of India deals with constitution of Municipalities. Clause 1(b) of Article 243Q refers to a Municipal Council for a

smaller urban area and Clause 1(c) of Article 243Q refers to a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. Article 243K of the Constitution of

India depicts the power of the State Election Commission to conduct elections.

The material on record clearly depicts that though the election is imminent to be conducted on or before 05.09.2018, the State Government has not

issued the notifications for delimitation within the time stipulated. Therefore, the Election Commission has approached this Court by way of writ

petition for a mandamus against State Government. When the matter was pending before the Court, the State Government issued draft and final

notifications. Admittedly, the final notification issued on 28.12.2017 in respect of Tumakuru and on 23.4.2018 in respect of Mysuru for delimitation of

wards and writ petitions are filed in the month of July-2018 by few petitioners before this court challenging the delimitation of wards on the ground that

State Election Commission and the State Government have not discharged the constitutional mandate etc., It is equally true that when the draft

notification was issued inviting the objections, only some of the petitioners have filed objections and others have not filed any objections and ultimately,

final notification came to be issued as long back as on 28.12.2017 in respect of Tumakuru and on 23.4.2018 in respect of Mysuru and the writ petitions

are filed only in the month of July-2018, that too when the elections are imminent. Therefore, the petitioners also have no social obligation and they

have not come to this Court within the time and they have filed writ petitions at the fag end of the day raising various questions/problems, which

clearly indicate that both the Election Commission, State Government as well as petitioners are indirectly pressurizing the Court at the fag end of the

day, which is impermissible.

A careful perusal of the draft notifications dated 20.6.2017 and 8.2.2018 and the final notifications dated 28.12.2017 and 23.4.2018 in respect of

Tumakuru and Mysuru respectively issued by the respondent-Government clearly depict that the State Government issued the said notifications under

the provisions of Sections 7(2)(a) and 21 of KMC Act in terms of 2011 census and writ petitions were filed at the fag end of the day i.e., in the month

of July-2018. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before this Court, when the elections are imminent to be conducted before

05.09.2018 as mandated by the Constitution of India.Â

If holding of election is allowed to be stalled on the complaint of few individuals/petitioners, then grave injustice will be done to lakhs of other

voters, who have a right to elect their representatives to the local bodies. The Court should not intervene when the elections were imminent. It must be

stated that though the constitutional bar applies, it will not take away the power of the Courts in examining the effect of the notification issued under

Section 21 of the KMC Act, if such notification cannot be traced to Article - 243ZA. If the notification issued for delimitation of the constituencies and

allotment of seats thereof is a law arising under Article 243ZA, the same cannot be called in question in view of Article 243ZG. If that is so, the

provisions arising under Section 21(1-A) is superfluous as it merely gives effect to the provisions of the Constitution. If it exceeds that scope or falls

short of the same in meeting the requirements thereof, a notification issued thereunder can certainly be examined as to its validity. By careful reading

of the notifications issued by the State Government exercising powers under Section 21 of the KMC Act, it may not be possible to say that the

notifications have the force of law and is beyond challenge by virtue of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, but the challenge should be made

soon after final notifications issued. In the present case, admittedly draft notifications were issued on 20.6.2017 and 8.2.2018 and the final notifications

were issued on 28.12.2017 and 23.4.2018 in respect of Tumakuru and Mysuru Corporations respectively and writ petitions were filed in the month of

July-2018 after lapse of several months. The same is impermissible in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of ANUGRAH NARAIN

SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (1996)6 SCC 303, wherein at paragraphs 24 and 25 it is held as under:

The validity of Sections 6-A, 31, 32 and 33 of the U.P. Act dealing with delimitation of wards cannot be questioned in a court of law because of

the express bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. Section 7 contains rules for allotment of seats to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled

Tribes and the Backward Class people. The validity of that section cannot also be challenged. That apart, in the instant case, when the delimitation of

the wards was made, such delimitation was not challenged on the ground of colourable exercise of power or on any other ground of arbitrariness. Any

such challenge should have been made as soon as the final order was published in the Gazette after objections to the draft order were considered and

not after the notification for holding of the elections was issued. As was pointed out in Lakshmi Charan Sen case [(1985) 4 SCC 689] , that the fact

that certain claims and objections had not been disposed of before the final order was passed, cannot arrest the process of election.

In this connection, it may be necessary to mention that there is one feature to be found in the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 which is absent

in the U.P. Act. Section 10 of the Act of 1962 provided that the Commission shall cause each of its order made under Sections 8 and 9 to be published

in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned. Upon publication in the Gazette of India every such order shall have the

force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. Because of these specific provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in the

case of Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [AIR 1967 SC 669 : 1967 MPLJ 553] , this Court held that notification of orders passed under

Sections 8 and 9 of that Act had the force of law and therefore, could not be assailed in any court of law because of the bar imposed by Article 329.

The U.P. Act of 1959, however, merely provides that the draft order of delimitation of municipal areas shall be published in the Official Gazette for

objections for a period of not less than seven days. The draft order may be altered or modified after hearing the objections filed, if any. Thereupon, it

shall become final. It does not lay down that such an order upon reaching finality will have the force of law and shall not be questioned in any court of

law. For this reason, it may not be possible to say that such an order made under Section 32 of the U.P. Act has the force of law and is beyond

challenge by virtue of Article 243-ZG. But any such challenge should be made soon after the final order is published. The Election Court constituted

under Section 61 of the U.P. Act will not be competent to entertain such an objection. In other words, this ground cannot be said to be comprised in

sub-clause (iv) of clause (d) of Section 71 of the U.P. Act. In the very nature of things, the Election Court cannot entertain or give any relief on this

score. The validity of a final order published under Section 33 of the U.P. Act is beyond the ken of Election Court constituted under Section 61 of the

said Act.

It is not in dispute that Article 243P(g) defines ‘population’ to mean the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the

relevant figures have been published. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the

Constitution of India in the case of ANUGRAH NARAIN SINGH cited supra held at Paragraph-33 as under:

In our view, the argument advanced on behalf of the State must be upheld. It is true that Article 243-P(g) has defined ‘population’ to mean

“population as ascertained by the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been publishedâ€. The delimitation of constituencies and

also preparation of electoral rolls will have to be done on the basis of the figures available from the last census which was taken in 1991. Reservation

of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is mandatory under Article 243-T of the Constitution. This must also be done on the basis of the

available figures from the census. Clause (6) of Article 243-T of the Constitution has made it permissible for the State Government to reserve seats

for other Backward Classes. The census of 1991 has not enumerated the number of persons belonging to Backward Classes. Therefore, in order to

reserve seats for citizens belonging to Backward Classes, their number will have to be found out. Clause (6) of Article 243-T has impliedly

empowered the State Government to ascertain the Backward Classes and the number of people belonging to such classes. Otherwise, the provisions

of clause (6) of Article 243-T will become otiose and meaningless. Merely because, such an enumeration of people belonging to Backward Classes

was made, does not mean that the figures enumerated by the last census were discarded. The latest available census figures had to be the basis for

delimitation of the constituencies, preparation of electoral rolls and also for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women.

But census figures are not available for persons belonging to Backward Classes. The next census will be in the year 2001. There is no way to reserve

seats for Backward Classes in the meantime except by making a survey of the number of persons belonging to such classes for the purpose of giving

them assured representation in the municipal bodies. To do this exercise is not to do away with the last available census figures but to find out what

was not to be found by the last census. Had such counting been done in the census, then it would not have been open to the State Government to

embark upon a survey of its own. The State Government here had only two choices. It could say that there will be no reservation for people belonging

to Backward Classes because, the census figures of such people are not available or it could make a survey and count the number of people belonging

to the Backward Classes and reserve seats for them in the municipal bodies. The State Government has taken the latter course. This is in consonance

with the provisions of clause (6) of Article 243-T. Therefore, the survey made by the State Government for finding out the number of persons

belonging to Backward Classes was not in any way contrary to or in conflict with any of the provisions of the Constitution.

It is an undisputed fact that every Corporation shall have a lifespan of five years and if dissolved earlier, fresh elections will have to be held within

the time specified in clause (3) of Article 243U of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

243U. Duration of Municipalities, etc:-Â

(1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its

first meeting and no longer: Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution

(2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Municipality at any level, which is functioning

immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause(1)Â

(3) An election to Constitute a Municipality shall be completed,

                       (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause ( 1 );Â

(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:

Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be

necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period.Â

(4) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the

period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under, clause(1) had it not been so dissolved.

It is an undisputed fact that in view of provisions of section 21(1) and (2) and 35(1)(d)(iv) of the KMC Act and Articles 243ZA, 243ZG and 243U

of the Constitution of India, the delimitation of wards was done on the basis of latest census figures. Admittedly in the present case, both the draft and

final notifications were issued by the State Government for the delimitation of wards on the basis of 2011 census figures. The alleged violation of

population of wards stated in terms of statute would not in any way affect the petitioners and ultimately it is for the petitioners to file election petitions

before the appropriate Court/Election Tribunal. On that ground also writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

It is also not in dispute that the duration of Municipalities is fixed as five years and it is mandatory in nature and any violation cannot be justified in

view of Article 243U of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 243K, 243ZA, 324, 243E,

243U, 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of KISHANSING TOMAR vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF

AHMEDABAD reported in (2006)8 SCC 352 held at paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 as under:

From the opinion thus expressed by this Court, it is clear that the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on

unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. The Election Commission shall try to complete the election before the

expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in clause (5). Any revision of electoral rolls shall be carried out in time and if it cannot be

carried out within a reasonable time, the election has to be conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral rolls. In other words, the Election

Commission shall complete the election before the expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in clause (5) and not yield to situations

that may be created by vested interests to postpone elections from being held within the stipulated time.

The majority opinion in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman [(1985) 4 SCC 689] held that the fact that certain claims and objections

are not finally disposed of while preparing the electoral rolls or even assuming that they are not filed in accordance with law cannot arrest the process

of election to the legislature. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral rolls which are in force on the last date for making nomination. It

is true that the Election Commission shall take steps to prepare the electoral rolls by following due process of law, but that too, should be done timely

and in no circumstances, it shall be delayed so as to cause gross violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Article 243-U of the Constitution.

It is true that there may be certain man-made calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities which could distract

the authorities from holding elections to the municipality, but they are exceptional circumstances and under no (sic other) circumstance would the

Election Commission be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Government and other authorities. But that should be an

exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of the municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243-

U, it is clear that the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. It

is only when the municipality is dissolved for any other reason and the remainder of the period for which the dissolved municipality would have

continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting the municipality for such period.

In our opinion, the entire provision in the Constitution was inserted to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new

municipality every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue, the

provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution. In this direction, it is necessary for all the State Governments to recognise the significance of

the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it

follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for Parliament and the State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of

elections to the panchayats and the municipal bodies under Part IX and Part IX-A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same

status as the Election Commission of India.

It is also not in dispute that the duration of five years as provided or prescribed for Municipalities and the elections to the Municipalities which

include Municipal Corporation are mandatorily required to be held within a period of five years. After completion of five years, fresh bodies or

representatives have to be elected and constituted by holding the elections i.e., on or before 5.9.2018 in the present cases. Therefore the respondents

cannot be directed to flout the mandate of the Constitution by quashing the impugned notification issued for delimitation of wards. In order to obey the

constitutional mandate, the respondents are in a hurry to hold elections and also issued calendar of events. If the elections are not held within the time

stipulated under the Constitution, it would certainly lead to breach of the constitutional mandate. Besides, it would result in breakdown of the

democratic set up as envisaged under the Constitution.

A careful perusal of Article 243U of the Constitution of India would depict that the election to the Municipalities/Corporations will have to be held

before the expiry of its duration of five years as specified in Clause (1) of Article 243U of the Constitution. The State Election Commissioner has

already taken preliminary steps for holding the elections by issuing calendar of events/necessary instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners

concerned. It is true that there are differences of ratio of population in some of the wards as per the documents relied upon by some of the petitioners.

Subsequently the same has been rectified by the Municipal Corporations in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the

Constitution of India as per the Table â€" Annexure R4 filed by the Respondent â€" Mysuru City Corporation along with the additional statement of

objections. That itself is not a ground to entertain the writ petitions at this stage, when the elections are imminent, moreso when the petitioners have an

alternative and efficacious remedy of taking such ground in the election petition. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before this

Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that there is a breach of statutory provisions while doing delimitation of wards on the basis of 2011 census

figures. The same cannot be a ground to stall holding of election in the present writ petitions and the same would be a ground for election petition in

view of the provisions of Articles 226, 243ZA, 243ZG and 243U of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the

provisions of Articles 243ZG and 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of ANUGRAH NARIAN cited supra held at paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 15,

17, 28 and 35 as under:Â

The question that came up for decision before the Allahabad High Court has been stated in the judgment in the following words:

“… the common question raised in all these petitions is as to whether in terms of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution there is complete and absolute

bar in considering any matter relating to municipal election on any ground whatsoever after the publication of the notification for holding municipal

election.â€​

The answer must be emphatically in the affirmative. The bar imposed by Article 243-ZG is twofold. Validity of laws relating to delimitation and

allotment of seats made under Article 243-ZA cannot be questioned in any court. No election to a municipality can be questioned except by an

election petition. Moreover, it is well settled by now that if the election is imminent or well under way, the court should not intervene to stop the

election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election will ever take place because someone or the other will always find some excuse to move the

court and stall the elections. There were ten petitioners in the main writ petition and several others in connected writ petitions, who had questioned the

fairness of the action of the authorities concerned in publication of the notifications dated 11-10-1995 and 13-10-1995 pursuant to which the elections

to the Municipal Corporations throughout the State of U.P. were to be held. The State Government and also the Election Commission took the stand

before the High Court that after the publication of the notification for holding municipal elections, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

could not interfere with the election process. On the other hand, the writ petitioners' contention was that the election was being held in a farcical

manner and the confidence of the people had been shaken in the electoral process and the constitutional guarantee regarding constitution and

composition of the municipalities had been thrown to the winds. In this situation, Article 243-ZG could not be treated as an absolute bar to doing justice

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

There are several reasons why these arguments of the writ petitioners should not have been upheld. The High Court overlooked the fact that no

municipal election had been held in the State for nearly ten years and the dates of the elections were fixed under the direction given by the High Court

in another case. Importance of holding elections at regular intervals for panchayats, municipal bodies or legislatures cannot be overemphasised. If

holding of elections is allowed to be stalled on the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who have a

right to elect their representatives to the local bodies. As a result of the order of the High Court, elections that were going to be held to the local bodies

after a long lapse of nearly ten years were postponed indefinitely. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M.

Hassan Uzzaman [(1985) 4 SCC 689] , that: (SCC p. 703, para 21)

“… the fact that certain claims and objections are not finally disposed of, even assuming that they are filed in accordance with law, cannot arrest

the process of election to the legislature. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date for making

nominationsâ€​.

The Court also quoted from its order dated 30-3-1982 that: (SCC pp. 219-20, para 1)

“… no High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the

tendency or effect of postponing an election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked. The imminence of

the electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The more

imminent such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance of the High Court to do anything, or direct anything to be done, which will postpone that

process indefinitely by creating a situation in which, the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution. … The High Courts must observe a self-imposed limitation on their power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or give

directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic

foundation and functioning of our Constitutionâ€​.

In Lakshmi Charan Sen case [(1985) 4 SCC 689] , this Court was dealing with Part XV of the Constitution which deals with preparation of

electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament, and to the Legislatures of different States and all elections to the offices of the

President and the Vice-President. We are in this case, concerned with the elections to municipal bodies. But the principles laid down in Lakshmi

Charan Sen case [(1985) 4 SCC 689] will apply in full force to municipal elections because various articles dealing with holding of municipal elections

in Part IX-A of the Constitution are similarly worded. In fact, highest importance has been attached to holding of panchayat as well as municipal

elections by the Constitution. Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution were introduced by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 and (74th

Amendment) Act, 1992. By these two Parts, it was intended to take democracy to the grass- root level. Part IX deals with constitution of panchayats,

composition of panchayats and holding of regular elections to the panchayats. Article 243-O contains a bar to interference by Court in electoral

matters. This bar is similar to the bar contained in Article 329 of the Constitution in Part XV, the implication of which was explained by this Court in

the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen [(1985) 4 SCC 689] .

Therefore, so far as preparation of the electoral roll is concerned, there are sufficient safeguards in the Act against any abuse or misuse of power.

In view of these provisions and particularly, in view of sub-section (6) of Section 39 which provides for appeals in regard to inclusion, deletion or

correction of names, there is hardly any scope for a court to intervene and correct the electoral rolls under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, if

this is allowed to be done, every election will be indefinitely delayed and it will not be possible to comply with the mandate of the Constitution that

every Municipality shall have a life span of five years, or less, if dissolved earlier, and thereafter fresh elections will have to be held within the time

specified in clause (3) of Article 243-U. Having regard to the provisions for filing objections and also the right of appeal against inclusion, deletion and

correction of names and also to the constitutional authority of the Election Commission to give directions in all matters pertaining to elections, the Court

should not have intervened at all on the basis of allegations as to preparation of electoral rolls.

Lastly, the Court on no account should have directed postponement of the elections by the impugned judgment and order dated 13-11-1995. On 11-

10-1995, the notification for holding the municipal elections was issued. 16-10-1995 to 20-10-1995 was the period during which the nomination papers

could be filed. 24-10-1995 was the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers. Voting was to take place between 17-11-1995 to 20-11-1995. The

writ petition was filed as late as 26-10-1995 on the allegation that there were defects in the electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and

reservation of seats. A similar writ petition moved before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court (WP No. 2997 of 1995) had been

dismissed by the Court on 18-10-1995. Barely one week before the voting was scheduled to commence, the Court decided to intervene in the matter

regardless of the repeated warnings given by this Court in a number of earlier decisions. The Court decided to intervene in the matter and stop the

election process while it was nearing completion. In Lakshmi Charan case [(1985) 4 SCC 689] , it was held that the Court should not intervene even

when the elections were imminent. Here, the election was well under way.

This Court while considering the provisions of Article 243E of the Constitution of India in the case of PROFESSOR B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR

vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA {ILR 1999 Kar. 2513} held at paragraph 23 as under:

Commission had proposed to hold elections before the expiry of the term of the earlier panchayat in two phases and when was due to issue the

calender of events the Government proposed to make structural changes regarding the declaration of panchayat area, population criteria etc. Can it be

said that process of election had begun and therefore the ordinance would have no effect on the election due in the month of March/April 1999? It is

to be seen that when the Commission was about to issue calender of events, the ordinance was promulgated. Supreme Court of India in N.P.

Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal [ AIR 1952 SC 64.] while considering as to when the ‘elections’ commence, held that necessarily

elections do not commence with the issue of the calender of events only. It would depend upon the situation of facts of each case. While assigning

meaning to the word ‘election’ used in the context of Articles 324 and 329(b) of the Constitution it was held that the word ‘election’ can

be and has been properly used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may

have an important bearing on the result of the process. The relevant extract of the observations of the Supreme Court reads: (From para 7)

“It seems to me that the word ‘election’ has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire

procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression ‘conduct of elections’ in Article 324 specifically

points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article 329(b).

That the word ‘election’ bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of

the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins. The subject is dealt

with quite concisely in Halsbury's Laws of England in the following passage see P. 237 of Halsburry's Laws of England, Edn. 2 Vol. 12 under the

heading ‘Commencement of the election.’:

‘Although the first formal step in every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some purposes to being at an earlier date. It is

a question of fact in each case when an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible for breaches of election law, the

test being whether the contest in ‘reasonably imminent’. Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of election can be

looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this point of view, Nor, again, does the nomination day afford any criterion. The election will

usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as to when

‘the conduct and management of’ an election may be said to begin. Again, the question as to when a particular person commences toÂ

be a candidate is a question to be considered in each case.’ Â

The discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word ‘election’ can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire

process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an-important bearing on the result of the process.â€​

The election Commission had taken all steps in connection with the preparation of polls and issue of notifications under Section 5(1) followed by the

notifications by the Deputy Commissioner under Sections 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4). Election Commission had also issued the notification under Section 5(5)

delimiting the Constituencies in each panchayat. In the context of the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the process of election would have

begun only with the issuance of calender of events. It is apparent that the Election Commission had taken all preparatory steps and the process of

election had already been put in motion once the process of election begins, the election cannot be postponed. Elections to the Panchayats under the

circumstances could not be post poned. As observed earlier the timings of the issuance of the ordinance is not mere coincidental. Resulting effect of

the ordinance is postponement of election to the Grama Panchayats in the State thereby flouting the mandate of the Constitution of India which cannot

be countenanced or accepted under any circumstances. To that extent the ordinance has to be ignored.

This Court while considering the provisions of Section 21 of the KMC Act and the provisions of Parts IX and IX A of the Constitution of India in

the case of SURENDRA BABU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA {ILR 1996 KAR 1797} held at paragraph-9 as under:

The second contention urged is that Section 21(1A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act is invalid. The decision of the Supreme Court in

Meghraj's case [AIR 1967 SC 669.] deals with an identical provision arising under the Delimitation Act which we have adverted to earlier. We have

already upheld Article 243 ZG as valid which bars the interference of Courts in matters pertaining to delimination of wards or allotment of seats.

Under the Delimitation Act enacted which pertains to the delimitation of constituencies in relation to Parliament, the Court examined the scope of the

matter and stated that notwithstanding the limitation arising under Article 329(a) unless such notification is deemed to be law for purpose of Article

243ZA. Article 243ZG would not prevent investigation by any Court of law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to strike down this provision even assuming

that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner may be correct, as the scope is limited. If the notification issued for delimitation of the

constituencies and allotment of seats thereof is a law arising under Article 243ZA, the same cannot be called in question in view of Article 243ZG. If

that is so, the provisions arising under Section 21(1A) is superfluous as it merely gives effect to the provisions of the Constitution to which we have

made reference just now. If it exceeds that scope or falls short of the same in meeting the requirements thereof, a notification issued there under can

certainly be examined as to its validity. Thus, the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is also rejected. In any event, we cannot hold that

Section 21-A of the Act is invalid.

Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of BHARATHI REDDY vs. STATE OF

KARANTAKA {(2017)12 SCC 61}, it was a case under the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering

the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, held that power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is an

essential feature of Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded and even Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure

of the Constitution and therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitions filed by Respondent Nos.6 to 9 therein under Article 226 of Constitution of

India is not maintainable; However, it is left to the discretion of the Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 to entertain the writ

petitions.

In the present case though a contention was raised that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the bar under Article 243-U of the

Constitution of India, it has to be stated that the notification issued by the State Government for delimitation of wards cannot be considered as law.

Therefore, writ petitions though maintainable, still the petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India since the petitioners filed writ petitions at a belated stage and the elections to the Local bodies are imminent in view of Article

243U of Constitution of India and the elections cannot be postponed because of few individuals.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several judgments in support of their contentions that notification issued by the State Government is

not the law and therefore the writ petitions are maintainable. This Court is not dismissing the petitions on the ground of maintainability, but this court

has decided the matters on merits as stated supra. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases.

It is relevant to state at this stage that the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.32989/2018 & W.P Nos.32990-991/2018 have sought for quashing the

impugned notification dated 23.04.2018 issued by the 1st

Respondent, insofar as not determining the layouts which have been handed over by the 4th Respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority, more

particularly not determining the Preethi and Sai Layout in the impugned notification for any of the wards to the election for the office of councilors in

the 3rd Respondent Mysore City Corporation. The petitioners have sought for the above reliefs to enable them to franchise their votes in the ensuing

elections to be conducted for Mysuru City Corporation/Urban Local Bodies in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 23.4.2018 issued by the

1st respondent.

Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent â€" State, on instructions submits that no voter within the limits of Mysuru City

Corporation/Urban Local Body will be deprived to franchise their votes and assured the Court that he will instruct the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru

to take all necessary immediate steps to include the names of the petitioners as well as the residents of Preethi and Sai lay-outs of Mysuru in the

voters’ list for the ensuing election to be conducted for Mysuru City Corporation/Urban Local Bodies, in accordance with law.

Therefore it is appropriate to dispose of Writ Petition Nos.32989/2018 & W.P Nos.32990-991/2018 with a direction to the respondents, in

particular to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to include the names of the petitioners as well as the residents of Preethi and Sai lay-outs of Mysuru

in the voters’ list so as to enable them to franchise their vote in the ensuing elections to be conducted for the Mysuru City Corporation/Local

bodies

X. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the point No.1 raised in the present writ petitions has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the writ petitions

are maintainable and the point No.2 has to be answered in the negative holding that the petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the

impugned final delimitation notifications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India since the elections have to be completed on or before

5th September 2018 as per the constitutional mandate in view of provisions of Article 243U of Constitution of India.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.30543-30545/2018 c/w Writ Petition Nos. 29858-29862/2018, 31438-

31442/2018, 33432-33435/2018 are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the said writ petitions are dismissed.

Writ Petition Nos. 32989/2018 & W.P Nos.32990-991/2018 are disposed of with a direction to the respondents, in particular to the Deputy

Commissioner, Mysuru to include the names of the petitioners as well as the residents of Preethi and Sai lay-outs of Mysuru in the voters’ list so

as to enable them to exercise their franchise in the ensuing elections to be conducted for the Mysuru City Corporation/Local bodies, in accordance

with law. Â