Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Council Qadian Through Its … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 March, 2026
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -1-
& connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114 +234+248 CWP-3129-2026
Date of Decision :23.03.2026
Hardev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3134-2026
Ashok Kumar Gupta and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3140-2026
Babita Khosla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3261-2026
Paramjit Singh Makkar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3413-2026
Rajkaran Baidwan ...Petitioner
Versus
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -2-
& connected cases
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3421-2026
Rajpreet Singh Khamb and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3471-2026
Yatin Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3479-2026
Kuldeep Singh Dhillon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3612-2026
Pardeep Soni and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3850-2026
Arvind Singla and other ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -3-
& connected cases
CWP-4188-2026
Shashi Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-4242-2026
Jatinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-4260-2026
Narinder Kumar Munjal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-4467-2026
Kuldeep Singh Dhillon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-4509-2026
Daaman Thind Bajwa ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
` CWP-4858-2026
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -4-
& connected cases
Gurinder Singh Walia & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-01-2026
Rajesh Jain and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-03-2026
Rajvir Singh & others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39677-2025
Gursewak Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-07-2026
Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39740-2025
Ranvir Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -5-
& connected cases
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39751-2025
Gurbhagat Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39752-2025
Harsimran Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39760-2025
Municipal Council, Ferozepur & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-04-2026 (O&M)
Rinku Rani @ Rinku Rani Dhuria & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-39354-2025
Municipal Council, Fatehgarh Churian, ...Petitioner
District Gurdaspur
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -6-
& connected cases
CWP-1522-2026
Jagtar Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-1523-2026
Municipal Council, Faridkot & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-1524-2026
Amrish Kalia & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-1695-2026
Sushil Kumar Sharma & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-2066-2026
Amar Singh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-2687-2026
Bhupesh Kumar Jindal & another ...Petitioners
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -7-
& connected cases
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-2792-2026
Deepak Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-2795-2026
Darshan Singh Karwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-2953-2026
Raman Kumar Saili ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3064-2026
Balkar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3139-2026
Gursewak Singh Mann & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -8-
& connected cases
CWP-40-2026 (O &M)
Baljinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-41-2026 (O &M)
Sarup Chand Singla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-529-2026 (O &M)
Iqbal Singh Dhillon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-613-2026
Manish Kumar Garg & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-761-2026
Rajan Ghai and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-921-2026
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -9-
& connected cases
Gulshan Rai & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-946-2026
Kapoor Chand & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-986-2026
Jagjit Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-908-2026
Harsimran Singh Wararh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-967-2026
Ashu Banger @ Amardeep & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -10-
& connected cases
Present:- Mr. S.S. Behl, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWPs-761,3129,3134 & 3140 of 2026.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Preet Arora &
Ms. Navdita Rathore, Advocates for petitioners
in CWP-40-2026.
Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankush Tahkral, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-3139-2026.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Vidushi, Advocate for petitioner in CWP-613-2026.
N.K. Verma Advocate with Mr. G.K. Jangra. Advocate
for the petitioner in CWPs-07, 2687, 2792, 2953
& 2795-2026 & CWPs-519, 466, 568, 1337, 1996 & 2281,
2306, 2341 of 2026.
Mr. Jagmohan Ghumma, Advocate with
Ms. Apoorva Arya & Mr. Naveen Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-3107 & 4858-2026.
Mr. Pardeep K. Bajaj, Advocate with
Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for petitioners
in CWPs-39751 & 39752-2025, CWP-967-2026
& CWP-1522-2026.
Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Arya, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-39354-2025
Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for petitioner
in CWP-2994-2026.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-39760-2025.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sivia, Advocate
for petitioner in CWP-04-2026.
Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for petitioner
in CWP-41-2026.
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for petitioners in CWP-911-2026.
Mr. Ankush Thakral, Advocate for petitioners
AARTI SHARMA in CWP-3139-2026.
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -11-
& connected cases
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for petitioners
in CWP-1523 & 1524 of 2026.
Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate with
Mr. Navdeep S. Khokhar, Advocate for petitioners
in CWP-1695,529,908,3261 & 1228 of 2026 & 8908-2026.
Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-2066-2026.
Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate with
Mr. Daljit Singh Gilzian, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWPs-3612 & 4188-2026.
Mr. Vedant Setia, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-3064-2026 & CWP-4360-2026.
Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the petitioner in CWP-921 & 986 of 2026.
Mr. Parvinder Singh, & Mr. Ibadat S. Randhawa, Advocates
for the petitioners in CWP-946-2026.
Mr. S.S. Tinna, Advocate with Ms. Geeta Dahiya, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-09 of 2026
Mr. Gurnoor Singh, Advocate for petitioner
in CWP-6330-2026
Mr. Jastej Singh Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate
for respondent-M.C. in CWPs-937,3234,3413,3612,6330,
07, 613, 1523, 2953, 3134 & 1285 of 2026 &
CWPs-34469 & 34470 of 2025
Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shivani Sharma & Arshdeep Advocates
for respondent No.5 in CWP-39740-2025
for respondent No.4 in CWP-01-2026
for respondent No.3 in CWP-39752-2025
for respondent No.3 in CWP-3140-2026 & 3850-2026
for respondent No.4 in CWP-4858-2026.
for respondent No.6 in CWP-3261-2026
for respondent-MC in CWP-529-2026
CWP-2066-2026, CWP-911-2026, CWP-1524-2026.
Mr. Maninder Singh Garcha, Sr. Advocate with
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -12-
& connected cases
Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate
for respondent No.3-M.C. Ferozepur.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5
in CWP-4360-2026.
Mr. Praagbir Singh Dhindsa Advocate with
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.4 & 5 in CWP-03-2026.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with
Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate for the respondent-MC
in CWPs-921, 946, 2687, 2795,1522 & 2397 of 2026
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the challenge is to the
order/notification passed by the Government of Punjab whereby, of
delimitation of wards of various Municipal Councils as well as Municipal
Corporations has been done.
2. The challenge to said orders/notifications has been raised
primarily on account of violation of principle of natural justice, as the
objections so filed by the petitioners before issuance of final
notifications/orders, have not been dealt with as a speaking order has not
been passed giving reasons therein for not accepting such
suggestions/objections raised by the concerned affected party, which act on
the part of the respondents is contrary to the settled principle of law and,
therefore, the delimitation of wards of the concerned Municipal
Council/Municipal Corporations which has been ordered to be done the
State is by passing a totally cryptic and non-speaking order, is liable to be
set aside.
3. Another ground which has been raised by the petitioner(s)
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -13-
& connected cases
before this Court is that while issuing draft notification whereby wards of
the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporations were proposed to be
delimited, certain boundaries of the wards which were proposed to be
delimited, were not described due to which, effective objections against said
draft notification could not be raised and, therefore, the non-grant of
effective opportunity to the parties affected to raise objections before
finalising the delimitation of wards of the various Municipal
Councils/Municipal Corporations shall vitiate the whole process of
delimitation and, therefore, the delimitation of various wards of Municipal
Councils/Municipal Corporation as ordered by the Government of Punjab
challenged in the present bunch of petitions, may kindly be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the non-
publication of said draft notification in the news paper has caused immense
prejudice to the petitioner(s) as effective objections against the same could
not be raised as they had no knowledge regarding the same, due to which,
final notification of delimitation of wards be treated as bad so as to set aside
the same as the process envisaged under the rules governing the delimitation
of wards has not been followed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that
wherever the draft notification was published, enough time should have been
given to the public at large to file objections against the same i.e seven days
time, which time period for filing objection is to be counted from the date
publication of said draft notification in the news paper which has not been
adhered by the respondents in all the cases and, therefore, as the rules of
natural justice stood violated before finalising of the draft notification qua
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -14-
& connected cases
the delimitation of wards of the various Municipal Councils/Municipal
Corporations, final notification so issued, needs to be set aside.
6. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have appeared and
defended their action of delimitation of wards of various Municipal
Councils/Municipal Corporations. Learned counsel for the respondent-State
submits that though, a single reply has been filed to all the writ petition but
the same is to be treated as reply to all the objections/suggestions raised in
other writ petitions as well keeping in view the fact that the objections so
raised in other writ petitions were identical.
7. Learned State counsel further submits that the delimitation of
wards has been done keeping in view the Delimitation of Wards of
Municipalities Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Rules’) as well
as the Delimitation of Wards of the Municipal Corporations Order, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Order’) as the case may be, which have
been followed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
proposed draft notification qua delimitation of wards was published in the
official gazette and physical copy of the same was kept in the office of the
Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations for the perusal of any interested
person who wanted to suggest any modification in the same and even the
map depicting the boundaries which were to be changed as per the draft
notifications was also a part of the said record hence, merely that in some of
the draft notification published, some blank portion qua the boundaries of
certain wards existed, which could be co-related/checked with the map
actually on record with the such draft notification. Learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that the final notification qua delimitation is
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -15-
& connected cases
very clear so as to show where the boundaries of each ward have been
closed .
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the
writ petition(s), the petitioner(s) have raised the ground thereby they are
seeking 30 days of time to file objections/suggestions by relying upon the
Punjab Municipal General Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1979
Rules’) whereas, such argument has already been taken into consideration
by the Division Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion and after
consideration rejected the said argument to mean that seven of days time
which has been given from issuance of draft notification in official gazette is
good enough for filing the suggestion/objections to the draft notification qua
delimitation of wards, the observation of which judgment has been followed
by State while undertaking the process of issuing of notification for
finalizing the wards so as to delimit the same within the boundaries of the
respective Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations. Learned counsel for
the respondents further submits that the law on the said issue is clear, that
the process of ‘delimitation’ is a legislative function and while performing
legislative functions, the requirement to follow the rules of natural justice
which are to be followed otherwise are not to be followed while performing
legislative function especially when, the same does not affect a particular
person rather the same concerned public at large and the wards are only
being delimited for the purpose of ensuring the smooth elections and once
everyone has been given due opportunity to raise objection and individual
only have a right to cast the vote and contest in the election which remains
intact merely that some of the wards which have undergone the process of
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -16-
& connected cases
delimitation and boundaries of which have been changed and are not to the
liking of a particular person/political party, will not give them a right to
challenge the same hence, the delimitation of wards of the Municipal
Councils/Municipal Corporations which is being challenged in the present
bunch of petitions has been done as per the settled principle of law and the
argument raised that the same should be set aside on the ground of violation
of rules of natural justice may kindly be rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that delimitation
of wards can only be done as per the 1972 Rules or 1995 Order, according to
which when there is an increase in the population of certain area or there is
an increase in the area of a Municipal Council or the Municipal Corporation
as the case may be but in the present case, no such occasion arose and no
valid exercise was undertaken by the State before ordering the delimitation
of wards, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner(s) and, therefore, the
delimitation of wards so ordered by the State is contrary to the rules
governing the issue of delimitation, the same being devoid of following the
process envisaged and therefore, the final notifications are liable to be set
aside on this account.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
11. The challenge in the present bunch of petitions is to the
delimitation of wards of various Municipal Councils/Municipal
Corporations done by the Government of Punjab on two grounds, firstly,
that non-adherance of the 1972 Rules or 1995 Order governing the said issue
which have been framed by the Government of Punjab itself that the
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -17-
& connected cases
required data qua population/any increase in area was not there which was
necessary before initiating the process of delimitation. Second argument is
that due opportunity to the residents of said wards to be delimited to make
objections against the said proposal has not been granted and therefore, the
delimitation process so initiated and finalize is liable to be set aside on the
ground of non-adherance of the rules of natural justice as adequate
opportunity to file objections was not afforded, and on the ground of non-
adherance of rule governing ‘delimitation’.
12. In order to decide the said issue, the relevant rules Delimitation
of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972 as well as the Delimitation of Wards
of the Municipal Corporations Order, 1995 are reproduced hereunder for
ready reference:-
The Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972
Rule – 1. Short title and commencement.–
(1) These orders may be called the Delimitation of Wards of
Municipalities Rules, 1972.
(2) They shall come into force at once.
Rule – 2. Definitions.–
In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires :-
(a) ‘Act’ means the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911;
(b) ‘associate member’ means a member associated under sub-
rule (2) of Rule 3;
(c) ‘Board’ means a Delimitation Board constituted under rule 3;
(d) ‘Director’ means the Director, Local Government
Department, Punjab;
(e) ‘Government’ means the Government of the State of Punjab is
Local Government Department.
[(f) “Sub-Divisional Officer” means the Sub- Divisional Officer
(Civil) of the concerned Sub-division,]
Rule – 3. Constitution of Board.–
(1) For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of these rules,
the Government shall constitute a Delimitation Board for each
Municipality consisting of the following members namely :-
[2] [(i) The Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the
Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat is situated or any other
Officer nominated by him in this behalf;
[(i)(a) member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly representing
the concerned Municipality.][3]
(ii) Sub-Divisional Officer;
(iii) The Deputy Director, Local Government of the region
AARTI SHARMA concerned;
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -18-
& connected cases
(iv) The President or Administrator of the Municipal Council or
Nagar Panchayat concerned; and
(v) Executive Officer of the Municipal Council or Nagar
Panchayat concerned.]
[(vi) One member nominated by the Government by notification.]
[(2) The Board shall associate with itself for the purpose of
assisting it in its day to day functioning not more than five
members of a Municipality having due regard to the
representation of various political parties and groups in the
composition of the Municipality. The names of the associate
members shall be sponsored to the Director by the Executive
Officer of the concerned Municipality in consultation with the
concerted Deputy Commissioner. This provision shall however,
not apply in the case of a dissolved Municipality.][5]
Rule – 4. Functions of the Board.–
It shall be the duty of the Board –
[(i) to divide the Municipality into such number of wards as may
be necessary having regard to the
number of elected members determined by the State Government,
for the[7] [Municipality], and the number of seats
reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes, Backward
Classes and women.]
(ii) to re-adjust the wards as and when the limits of the
Municipality are altered or there is increase in
population of the Municipality or there is abnormal variation in
population or voting figures of some of
the wards of the Municipality, which requires, such re-
adjustment.
Rule – 5. Procedure and Powers of the Board.–
(1) None of the associate members shall have a right to vote or to
sign any decision of the Board.
(2) The meetings of the Board shall be convened by the Director,
after giving notice of at least [three days][8] of the date, time
and place of the meeting to all of its members.
(3) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a
meeting of the Board shall be [four][9].
(4) All questions which come before any meeting of the Board
shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the members
present and voting. The Chairman of the meeting, in case of an
equality of votes, shall have a second or casting vote.
(5) The Board shall have power to act notwithstanding the
temporary absence of a member, or an associate member, or of
the existence of a vacancy in the Board, and no act or proceeding
of the Board shall be invalid or called in question on the ground
merely of temporary absence of a member or associate member,
or of the existence of such a vacancy.
[10] [(6) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall be the Chairman of
the Board. In his absence, the members present shall elect One
member who shall preside over the meeting of the Board as its
Chairman.]
Rule – 6. Principles for delimitation of wards of Municipality.–
The following principles shall be observed by the Board in the
delimination of wards of a Municipality, namely:-
[11] [(a) All wards shall as far as practicable, be geographically
compact areas, and in delimiting them due regard shall be had to
physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, if
any, facilities of communication and public convenience;
AARTI SHARMA (b) Each Municipality shall be divided into wards in such 2026.04.01 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -19- & connected cases manner that the population of each ward, as
far as practicable, is the same throughout the Municipality, with
a variation upto ten per-cent, above or below the average
population figures;
(c) Wards in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
shall be located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the
proportion of their population to the total population of the
Municipality is the larges and such seats shall be allocated by
rotation to different wards in the Municipality.]
(d) Seats numbers reserved for women (including number of
seats reserved for women, if any, belonging to Scheduled Castes)
by Government, shall be kept reserved for women and such seats
shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the
Municipality; and
(e) One seat reserved for Backward Classes by Government,
shall be kept reserved for the Backward Classes which shall be
located where their population in the Municipality is the larges
and such seat shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in
the Municipality.
[12] [(f) In every municipality, the Delimitation Board, while
drafting the scheme for Delimitation of Wards, shall allot
number to all wards having due regard to the principle of
constitution.]
Explanation. – In this rule, the expression “population” means the
population as ascertained locally through the staff deputed by the
Director, by going from door to door in the Municipality.
Rule – 7. Scheme for delimitation of wards to be sent to State
Government.–
The Board shall, as soon as may be after it has prepared the
scheme for the delimitation of wards of the Municipality, send the
same to the State Government for consideration.
Rule – 8. Publication of scheme for delimitation of wards.–
The State Government shall:-
(a) publish in the official gazette the scheme for the delimitation
of wards received by it under rule 7 for eliciting objections or
suggestions from the affected persons of the Municipality,
(b) specify a date on or after which the scheme alongwith
objections and suggestions, if any, will be considered by it;
(c) consider all objections and suggestions which may have been
received by it before the date so specified; and
(d) thereafter, by order determine the delimitation of wards of the
Municipality.
Rule – 9. Publication of final order of State Government.–
The State Government shall cause its order made in the form of
final notification under these rules to be published in the Official
Gazette, and upon such publication every such order shall have
the force of law.
Rule – 10. Correction of printing mistakes in order made by
State Government.–
The State Government may, from time to time, by notification in
the Official Gazette, correct any printing mistake in any of the
orders made by it, or any error occurring therein due to an
inadvertent slip or omission.”
Delimitation of Wards of the Municipal Corporations Order, 1995
The 3rd August, 1995
No. GSR45/PA 42/76/S.8/95. – In supersession of Government of
AARTI SHARMA Punjab Department of Local Government Notification No. GSR
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -20-
& connected cases
28/PA42/76/S.34/95, dated the 5th June, 1995, and in exercise of
the powers conferred by section 8 of the Punjab Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 (Punjab Act No. 42 of 1976), and all other
powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is
pleased to make the following order, to determine the delimitation
of wards in Municipal Corporations, namely :-
1. Short title and commencement. – (i) This order may be called the
Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order, 1995.
(ii) It shall come into force at once.
2. Definitions. – In this order unless the context otherwise requires,
–
(a) “Act” means the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;
(b) “Associate member” means a person associated under sub-
clause (2) of clause 3;
(c) “Board” means the Delimitation Board constituted under rule 3;
(d) “Constituency” means a ward, for the representation of which a
councillor to be or has been elected;
(e) “Member” means a member of the Board;
(f) “Population” mean the population as ascertained locally through
the staff deputed by the Director by going from door to door in the
city; and
(g) “Section” means a section of the Act.
3. Constitution of Board. [Section 8] – (1) For the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this order the Government shall
constitute a Board for each Municipal
Corporation consisting of the following members; namely :-
(i) the [Deputy Commissioner of the District]1 in which the
Municipal Corporation is situated or any other officer nominated by
him in this behalf;
(ii) the Director of any other officer nominated by him in this
behalf;
(iii) the Mayor or in his absence the Senior Deputy Mayor and in
the absence of both, the Deputy Mayor of the Corporation
concerned, as the case may be.
(iv) the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation concerned.
[(v) member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly representing the
concerned Municipal Corporation wholly or partly;
(vi) the Deputy Director (Regional), Local Government;]1
[(vii) the Joint Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the
Municipal Corporation concerned.]2
(viii) one member nominated by the Government by notification.]3
(2) The Board shall associate with itself for the purpose of assisting
in the performance of its functions not more than five councillors of
the Corporation having due regard to the representation of various
political parties and groups in the composition of the Corporation:
Provided that nothing contained hereinbefore shall apply to a
Corporation which has been dissolved.
4. Functions of the Board. [Section 8] – It shall be the duty of the
Board, –
(i) to divide the city into such number of wards as may be necessary,
having regard to the nuember of elected councillors determined by
the Government for the Corporation under sub-section (3) of
section 5 of the Act and the number of seats reserved for the
members of the Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Women
under section 6 of the Act; and (ii) to readjust the wards as and
when the limits of the City are altered or there is increase in the
population of the City or there is abnormal variation in population
or voting figures at some of the wards of the City, which require
such readjustment.
5. Procedure to be followed by the Board and powers of the Board.
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -21-
& connected cases
[Section
8] – (1) The [Director, Local Government, Punjab]4 shall be the
Chairman of the Board. In his absence, such member as Chairman
as the members present in the meeting of the Board, may elect from
amongst themselves.
(2) The meeting of the Board shall be convened by the Director,
after giving atleast ten days notice of the date, time and place of the
meeting of all the members of the Board.
(3) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at the
meeting of the Board shall be four.
(4) All questions which come before any meeting of the Board shall
be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and
voting. The Chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting
vote in case of an equality of votes.
(5) The Board shall have power to act notwithstanding the
temporary absence of a member, or an associate member or of the
existence of a vacancy in the Board, and no act or proceeding of the
Board shall be invalid or called into question on the ground merely
of temporary absence of a member or associate member, or the
existence of such a vacancy.
(6) An associate member shall not have the right to vote or to sign
any decision of the Board.
6. Principles for delimitation of wards of a City. [Section 8] – The
following principles shall be observed by the Board in the
delimitation of wards of a city, namely :-
(a) All wards shall as far as practicable, be geographically compact
areas, and
in delimiting them, due regard shall be had to the physical features
like facilities of communication and public convenience;
(b) Wards in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
shall be located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the
proportion of their population to the total population of the City, is
the largest and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different
wards in the City;
(c) Seats numbers reserved for women (including number of seats
reserved for women, if any, belonging to Scheduled Castes) by the
Government shall, be kept reserved for women, and such seats shall
be allotted by rotation to different wards in the Corporation;
(d) Two seats reserved for Backward Classes, by the Government,
shall be kept reserved for the Backward Classes, and such seats
shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the Corporation;
and
(e) Each Corporation shall be divided into two wards in such
manner that the population of each ward as far as practicable, is
the same throughout the Corporation, with a variation upto ten per
cent above or below the average population figures.
[(f) In every Municipal Corporation, the Board while drafting the
Scheme for delimitation of wards, shall allot numbers to all wards
having due regard to the principle of contiguity:]1
[Provided that the principle of rotation shall no be applicable
where the delimitation or wards of a Municipal Corporation has
been done under the provisions of sub clause (ii) of clause (4) of the
order.]2
7. Scheme for delimitation of wards to be sent to Government.
[Section 8] – The Board shall, as soon as may be, after it has
prepared the Scheme for the delimitation of the ward of the City,
send the same to the Government for consideration.
8. Publication of scheme for delimitation of wards. [Section 8] –
(1) The Government shall, –
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -22-
& connected cases
(a) publish in the official Gazette the scheme for the delimitation of
the wardsreceived by it under clause 7 for inviting objections or
suggestions from the affected persons of the City;
(b) specify a date on or after which the scheme along with
objections or suggestions, if any, shall be considered by it; and
(c) consider all objections and suggestions, which may have been
received by it before the specified date;
(2) The Government after considering the objections and
suggestions under sub-clause (I), shall make its final order and
shall get the same published in the Official Gazette.
[Provided that before the start of election process, the State
Government, may, for good and sufficient reasons, to be recorded in
writing, review the order made in the form of final notification after
inviting objections and suggestions in writing from the public
through the public notices in two newspapers having circulation in
the locality in respect of all or any of the Ward. After considering
such objections or suggestions, the State Government may
supersede the previous orders in the form of final notification
directly or after obtaining the opinion of the Boards.]1
9. Correction of printing mistakes in the order made by the
Government.
[Section 8] – The Government may, from time to time, by order in
the Official Gazette, correct any mistake in any of the orders made
by it, or any error occurring therein due to an inadvertent slip or
omission.
13. A bare perusal of the above reproductions would show that the
process which has been envisaged under law governing delimitation of
wards is that the Government has to firstly constitute a Delimitation Board
consisting of certain members, for each Municipal Council/Municipal
Corporation for assessing the delimitation and giving a proposal to the
Government for acceptance. The proposal which is received by the
Government from such Board so constituted is to be published in the
official gazette inviting suggestions/objections from public at large and
thereafter, the same is to be finalized by the Government by issuing final
notification for delimiting the wards so proposed by the Board in the
manner required.
14. The documents have been produced before this Court so as to
show that the process envisaged under 1972 Rules or 1995 Order said
process has been followed by the Government while delimiting the wards of
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -23-
& connected cases
various Municipal Council/Municipal Corporations.
15. The arguments which have been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner(s) is that adequate opportunity of submitting the
objections/suggestion has not been given to them as well as public at large,
which shows violation of rules of natural justice at the hands of State as,
instead of granting time period of 30 days as prescribed in 1979 Rules, only
seven days of period was given to raise such objections, which is incorrect.
The allegation/argument raised is that seven days of time should have been
counted from the date of publication of such notification in the news paper
whereas, the said period of seven days has been counted from the date the
draft notification was published in the official gazette. The argument is that
even the draft notification, which was published there exited certain blanks
qua boundaries of each wards which were to be delimited and which were
depicted which restricted filing of effective objections to the draft
notification and, therefore, on the ground of violation of principle of natural
justice, the delimitation of wards in question should be set aside.
16. It may be noticed that the issue with regard to the applicability
of 1979 Rules according to which 30 days of period is to be granted for
raising objections, has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this
Court in CWP-11619-2020 titled as Kulwinder Singh vs.. Union of India,
decided on 25.01.2021 wherein, it has been held that the period of seven
days from date of issuance of notification in the official gazette inviting
objections/suggestions qua delimitation of wards is valid.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have not been able to rebut
the said settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court.
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -24-
& connected cases
No material has been brought to the notice of this Court that the findings
arrived at by the Division Bench have been violated by the respondents
while undertaking the process of delimitation of wards in the present set of
cases. That being so, the argument being raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner(s) that enough time was not given to file
objections/suggestions, cannot be accepted.
18. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s)
vehemently argued that no even seven days time, rather only six days time
was given to file objections/suggestions which time granted is insufficient
and, therefore, the said opportunity granted should be treated as bad so as to
set aside the order of delimitation of wards in question.
19. On being asked whether, in said period of six days, the
petitioner(s) were able to file objections or not, learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner(s) concedes that the objections were filed in those six days.
Once, the petitioners/interested parties were able to file such
objections/suggestions, merely that the date when notification was published
has also been included in counting seven days, will not be a matter of
concern so as to set aside the delimitation of wards done especially when,
the intention of publication of draft notification is seeking the
objections/suggestion which was fulfilled, as the petitioners filed the
objections before the last date as envisaged in the draft notification hence, it
is the ends met, which is to be noticed in this scenario and mere
technicalities are not sufficient enough to set aside the notification so issued
qua delimitation of wards.
20. Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -25-
& connected cases
that in such draft notification where the boundaries of wards to be delimited
were depicted, there existed certain blanks and the boundaries of such wards
were not clear, it may be noticed that the averments have been made by the
respondent-State that along with the draft notification, a map showing the
projected boundaries of the wards to be delimited was also kept in the office
Municipal Council/Corporation for perusal of anyone who wanted to file
objections to same. Once, the boundaries of such wards to be delimited were
visible in the map which was attached with the draft notification, a mere
discrepancy that in certain draft notification, boundaries of certain wards
were not clear, will not vitiate the exercise so undertaken. Though, the
Government is advised that henceforth it would be much better that while
issuing the draft notification, the boundaries of the wards should also be
depicted clearly in the draft notification so as to avoid raising of any such
argument to challenge the delimitation of wards.
21. Another question which arises for consideration in the present
petitions is whether process of undertaking the delimitation of certain wards,
which is a legislative function can be challenged on the ground of violation
of principle of natural justice or not.
22. It may be noticed that the principles of natural justice are not
applicable in legislative functions which are performed by the State, for the
reason that the legislative functions are discharge by State by considering
public at large and such actions are not taken qua a particular person so as to
cause prejudice.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding Civil
Appeal 5826-1999 titled as State of Punjab vs. Tehal Singh, decided on
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -26-
& connected cases
07.01.2002 has held that where a legislative function is being performed by
the State, the rules of natural justice are not required to be observed with
such intensity. Relevant paragraphs 3 & 5 of the judgment are as under:-
“3. In Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and Ors. etc. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. etc., [1981] 2 SCC 722, it was held that
making of a declaration by notification that certain place shall be
principal market yard for a market area under the relevant
agricultural produce Market Act was an act legislative in
character. In Union of India and Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. and
Anr., [1987] vol. 2 SCC 720, this Court while making distinction
between legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial held thus:
“A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of
conduct without reference to particular cases; an administrative act is
the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a
general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements
of policy. Legislation in the process of formulating a general rule of
conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in
future; administration is the process of performing particular acts, of
issuing particular orders or of a making decisions which apply
general rules to particular cases’. It has also been said: “Rule making
is normally directed toward the formulation or requirements having a
general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class”
while, “an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific
individuals or situation”. But, this is only a broad distinction, not
necessarily always true. Administration and administrative
adjudication may also be of general application and there may be
legislation of particular application only. That is not ruled out. Again,
adjudication determines past and present facts and declares rights
and liabilities while legislation indicates the future cause of action.
Adjudication is determinative of the past and the present while
legislation in indicative of future. The object of the rule, the reach of
its application. The rights and obligations arising out of it. Its
intended effect on past, present and future events, its form, the manner
of its promulgation are some factors which may help; in drawing the
AARTI SHARMA
line between legislative and non-legislative acts”.
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -27-
& connected cases
The principles of law that emerge from the aforesaid decisions are-(l)
where provisions of a statute provide for the legislative activity, i.e.
making of a legislative instrument or promulgation of general rule of
conduct or a declaration by a notification by the Government that
certain place or area shall be part of a Gram Sabha and on issue of
such a declaration certain other statutory provisions come into an
action forthwith which provide for certain consequences; (2) where
the power to be exercised by the Government under provisions of a
statute does not concern with the interest of an individual and it
relates to public in general or concerns with a general direction of a
general character and not directed against an individual or to a
particular situation and (3) lay down future course of actions, the
same its generally held to be legislative in character.
“5. Once it is found that the power exercisable under Sections
3 and 4 of the Act respectively is legislative in character, the question
that arises is whether the State Government, while exercising that
power, the rule of natural justice is required to be observed? It is
almost settled law that an act legislative in character-primary or
subordinate, is not subjected to rule of natural justice. In case of
legislative act of legislature, no question of application of rule of
natural justice arises. However, in case of subordinate legislation, the
legislature may provide for observance of principle of natural justice
or provide for hearing to the resident of the area before making any
declaration in regard to the territorial area of a Gram Sabha and also
before establishing a Gram Sabha for that area. We have come across
many enactments where an opportunity of hearing has been provided
for before any area is excluded from one Gram Sabha and included it
in different Gram Sabhas or a local authority. However, it depends
upon the legislative wisdom and the provisions of an enactment.
Where the legislature has provided for giving an opportunity of
hearing before excluding an area from a Gram Sabha and including it
in another local authority or body, an opportunity of hearing is sine
qua non and failure to give such an opportunity of hearing to the
residents would render the declaration invalid. But where the
legislature in its wisdom has not chosen to provide for any
opportunity of hearing or observance of principle of natural justice
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -28-
& connected casesbefore issue of a declaration either under Section 3 or Section 4 of the
Act, the residents of the area cannot insist for giving an opportunity of
hearing before the area where they are residing is included in another
Gram Sabha or local authority. In Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal
and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (supra), this court held as thus:
“In one of the Bihar cases it was further submitted that when a
market yard was disestablished at one place and established at
another place, it was the duty of the concerned authority to invite
and hear objections. Failure to do so was a violation of the yard at
one place and establishing it elsewhere was, therefore, bad. It was
objections before a “market area” was declared under the Act, so
should objection be invited and heard before a ‘market yard’ was
established at any particular place. The principles of natural
justice demanded it. We are unable to agree. We are here not
concerned with the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function
where the very nature of the function involves the application of
the rules of natural justice, or of an administrative function
affecting the rights of persons, wherefore, a duty to act fairly. We
are concerned with legislative activity; we are concerned with the
making of a legislative instrument, the declaration by notification
of the Government that a certain place shall be a principal market
yard for a market area, upon which declaration certain statutory
provisions at once spring into action and certain consequences
prescribed by statute follow forthwith. The making of the
declaration, in the context, is certainly an act legislative in
character and does not oblige the observance of the rules of
natural justice.
In the present case, the provisions of the Act do not provide for
any opportunity of hearing to the residents before any area falling
under a particular Gram Sabha is excluded and included in
another Gram Sabha. In the absence of such a provision, the
residents of that area which has been excluded and included in a
different Gram Sabha cannot make a complaint regarding denial
of opportunity of hearing before issue of declarations
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act respectively. However, the
position would be different where a house of a particular resident
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -29-
& connected casesof an area is sought to be excluded from the existing Gram Sabha
and included it in another Gram Sabha. There the action of the
Government being directed against an individual, the Government
is required to observe principles of natural justice. For the
aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no opportunity of
hearing was required to be given before making declaration either
under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act by the Government.
24. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in the
present cases, the scheme of delimitation provides filing of the objections
and consideration of the same and, therefore, the same should be construed
in a manner that the rules of natural justice are to be adhered too so as to
pass a speaking order on such objections raised by affected persons.
25. It may be noticed that the legislative functions are not
inherently subject to rules of natural justice rather same are to be performed
keeping in view the liberty granted under the rules to the general public qua
said aspect. The rules governing ‘delimitation process’ stipulate taking of
objections/suggestions by affected persons. The purpose is to delimit the
wards. It is to be noted that delimiting of a ward is primarily a function of
the State and unless and until the process of delimitation is being undertaken
in a manner which is shockingly illegal to the procedure prescribed. In the
present cases, the factual averments clearly go to show that the requirement
envisaged under Rule-8 of 1972 Rules and Rule 8 of 1995 Order have
already been complied with so as to invite objections/suggestions and such
objections/suggestion received have already been taken into consideration
and common reply to the writ petitions states such process undertaken,
which assertion of the respondent-State has gone unrebutted.
26. Applicability of said rule of raising objections/suggestions is
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -30-
& connected casesbeing stretch to such an extent that the suggestions/objections so raised by
affected person are to be discussed and reasons are to be given for each and
every such objection raised for accepting or rejecting the same cannot be
accepted. The word used in rule-8 is ‘consideration’. While performing
legislative function, the term ‘consideration’ would mean that the objections
so raised have to be kept in mind while deciding the issue in hand so that a
fair chance is given to all the concerned. The contention by learned counsel
for the petitioner(s) that a speaking order should be passed so as to deal with
each objection/suggestion raised, is only required when administrative
action is being performed and that too on a punitive side rather than while
performing legislative function such as ‘delimitation of ward’ or ‘extension
of limit of a Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation’.
27. Further, the consideration which the Court is required to give is
keeping in view the provisions of law as to how, the Government is to
ensure the compliance of the rule qua delimitation. The word used qua
giving an opportunity, is the grant of opportunity to file
objections/suggestions for the consideration of the Government before
undertaking the process of delimitation proposed by the Delimitation Board
constituted, is to be finalized. The objections against ‘process of
delimitation’ can only be raised in case there is any violation of the process
envisaged under law, which is being brought to the notice of the
Government while finalizing the delimitation process whereas, the
suggestions are only with regard to the boundaries of the wards which are
being created. In the present petitions, the so called objections which have
been raised are only with regard to the boundaries which are being
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -31-
& connected caseschanged/adjusted framed while delimiting the wards. Qua the suggestions,
put forth by interested persons, the consideration upon such suggestions by
the Government is not required, so as to give reasons for not accepting the
same. The suggestions, though given, are only to be noticed by the
Government and it is within the prerogative of the Government either to
accept or reject the same and no right accrues with the person(s) giving
suggestion to claim that reasons are to be given for not accepting the said
suggestions. Further, with regard to the objections raised qua violation of
any process envisaged for delimiting the wards which is not being adhered
but the same is required to be looked into by the Government so as to
ascertain the same and take further steps for same if required. In case the
Government is of the view that said objections raised points to such
irregularities which can nullity the process already undertaken, appropriate
decision is required to be taken by the Government but otherwise, the
Government has a right to issue final notification.
28. Keeping in view the above, when the so called
suggestions/objections raised by the representatives of the political parties
are brought into operation in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
as already held, no violation of the rules so as to nullify the process of
delimitation has been brought to the notice of this Court.
29. Further, even if there were suggestions qua the ‘boundaries’
being adjusted, which were kept open in some of the cases, the same will not
nullify keeping in view the reasons which have already been given in the
preceding paragraphs of this order. Hence, in the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the process of delimitation undertaken,
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -32-
& connected casescannot be set aside merely on the basis of non-acceptance of the
objections/suggestions given by the petitioners qua the boundaries of the
wards or any irregularity much less the suggestions brought to the notice of
this Court so as to set aside the process of delimitation already undertaken
by the State.
30. The said issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal No.843 of 1966 titled as Meghraj Kothari vs.
Delimitation Commission and others, decided on 20.09.1966. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in paragraph-20 of the said judgment has held that
the publication of a delimitation of the constituencies though, is not a part of
an act of a Parliament but its effect is to the same. Relevant paragraphs 11
& 18 to 20 of the said judgment are as under:-
“11. It will be noted from the above that it was the
intention of the, legislature that every order under ss.
8 and 9 after publication is to have the force of law’ and
not to be made the subject matter of controversy in any
court. In other words, Parliament by enacting s.
10(2) wanted to make it clear that orders passed
under ss. 8 and 9 were to be treated as having the
binding force of law and not mere administrative
directions. This is further reinforced by sub-s.of s.10
according to which the readjustment of representations
of the several territorial constituencies in the House of
the People and the delimitation of those constituencies
provided for in any such order (i.e. under s. 8 or s. 9)
was to apply in relation to every election to the House
held after the publication of the order in the Gazette of
India and these provisions contained in the order were
to supersede all provisions relating to such
representation and delimitation contained in
the Representation of the People Act,, 1950 and the
Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly
Constituencies Order, 1961. In effect, this means the
complete effacement of all provisions of this nature
which were in force before the passing of the orders
under ss. 8 and 9 and only such orders were to hold the
field. Therefore although the impugned notification was
not a statute passed by Parliament, it was a law relating
to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -33-
& connected cases
seats to such constituencies made under Art. 327 of the
Constitution.
18. An examination of ss. 8 and 9 of the Act shows that
the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to
the scrutiny of any court ‘of law. Section 8, which deals
with the readjustment of the number of seats, shows
that the Commission must proceed on the’ basis of the
latest census figures and by order determine having
regard to the provisions of Arts. 81, 170, 330 and 332,
the number of seats in the House of the People to be
allocated to each State and the number of seats, if any,
to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the
Scheduled Tribes of the State. Similarly, it was the duty
of the Commission under s. 9 to distribute the seats in
the House of the People allocated to each State and the
seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State
to single member, territorial constituencies and delimit
them on the basis of the latest census figures having
regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the
factors enumerated in cls. (a) to (d) of sub-s. (1). Sub-
section, (2) of s. 9 shows that the work done under sub-
s. (1) was not to be final, but that the Commission (a)
had to publish its proposals under sub-s. (1) together
with the dissenting proposals, if any, of an associate
member, (b) to specify a date after which the proposals
could be further considered by it, (c) to consider, all
objections and suggestions which may have been
received before the date so specified, and for the
purpose of such consideration, to hold public sittings at
such place or places as it thought fit’ It is only then that
the Commission could by one or more order’ determine
the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies as
also of Assembly constituencies of each State.
19. In our view, therefore, the objection to the
delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained
by the Commission before the date specified. Once the
orders made by the Commission under ss. 8 and 9 were
published in the Gazette of India and in the official
gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no
longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to
be very good ‘reason behind such a provision. If the
orders made under ss. 8 and 9 were not to be treated as
final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished,
could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning
the delimitation of the constituencies from court to
court., Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates
the intention of the’ Legislature that the orders
under ss. 8 and 9 published under s. 10 (1) were to be
treated as law which was not to be questioned in any
court.
20. It is true that an order under s.8 or 9 published
under s.10(1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but
AARTI SHARMA
its effect is to be the same.
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -34-
& connected cases
31. Once, the process of delimitation is to be undertaken and is to
be construed as a legislative function interpreting the term ‘consideration’ in
a manner so that the same equals to passing of a speaking order, dealing
therein with each objection, will amount to putting restrictions upon such
exclusive legislative power which exists solely with the State hence, the
argument being raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) that as
final notification does not deal with each and every objection raised so as to
decide the same by passing speaking order, cannot be accepted.
32. Further, in Civil Appeal No.5735-1985 titled as Sudarjas
Kanhiya Lal Bhatija and others vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra, which
also deals with the applicability of rules of natural justice upon a legislative
action performed, it has been held that any duty performed by the State
which amounts to a legislative action, the applicability of rules of natural
justice upon legislative actions performed are not to be construed in a
manner so as to subject legislative actions performed with the same more
that what legislature is subjected to. Relevant paragraph 23 & 26 of the said
judgement are as under:-
“23.Reverting to the case, we find that the conclusion of the
High Court as to the need to reconsider the proposal to form
the Corporation has neither the attraction of logic nor the
support of law. It must be noted that the function of the
Government in establishing a Corporation under the Act is
neither executive nor administrative. Counsel for the
appellants was right in his submission that it is legisla- tive
process indeed. No judicial duty is laid on the Govern- ment in
discharge of the statutory duties. The only question to be
examined is whether the statutory provisions have been
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -35-
& connected casescomplied with. If they are complied with,, then, the Court
could say no more. In the present case the Government did
publish the proposal by a draft notification and also con-
sidered the representations received. It was only thereaf- ter, a
decision was taken to exclude Ulhasnagar for the time being.
That decision became final when it was notified under Section
3(2). The Court cannot sit in judgment over such decision. It
cannot lay down norms for the exercise of that power. It
cannot substitute even “its juster will for theirs.”
24. Equally, the rule issued by the High Court to hear the
parties is untenable. The Government in the exercise of its
powers under Section 3 is not subject to the rules of natu- ral
justice any more than is legislature itself. The rules of natural
justice are not applicable to legislative action plenary or
subordinate. The procedural requirement of hear- ing is not
implied in the exercise of legislative powers unless hearing
was expressly prescribed. The High Court, therefore, was in
error in directing the Government to hear the parties who are
not entitled to be heard under law.
26. There are equally clear authorities on this point from this
Court. The case in Tvlsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified
Area Committee, Tulsipur, [1980] 2 SCR 1111 was indeed a
hard case. But then, this Court did not make a bad law. There
a notification dated August 22, 1955 was issued under Section
3 of the U.P. Town Area covering the petition- er’s factory.
Consequently, the octroi was levied on goods brought by the
factory management into the limits of Town Area Committee.
The Company questioned the validity of that notification. The
case pleaded was that the company had no opportunity to
make representation regarding the advisabili- ty of extending
the limits of the Town Area Committee. Venkataramiah, J., as
the present learned Chief Justice then was, while rejecting the
contention observed (111920):
“The power of the State Government to make a declaration
under Section 3 of the Act is legislative in character because
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -36-
& connected casesthe applica- tion of the rest of provisions of the Act to the
geographical area which is declared as a town area is
dependent upon such declaration. Section 3 of the Act is in the
nature of a conditional legislation. Dealing with the nature of
functions of a non-judicial authori- ty, Prof. S.A. De Smith in
Judicial Review of Administrative Action (third edition)
observes at page 163: “However, the analytical classi-
fication of a function may be a conclusive factor in excluding
the operation of the audi alteram partem rule. It is generally
assumed that in English law the making of a subordi- nate
legislative instrument need not be pre- ceded by notice or
hearing unless the parent Act so provides.”
33. In the present case, the only act which was to be done was to
invite the objections/suggestions from interested persons and consider the
same before passing final notification, which act has been undertaken by the
State before passing the final order/notification of delimitation of wards
hence, interpreting the term ‘consideration’ in the manner that the same
means passing of speaking order by answering/replying to each and every
objection/suggestion invited, which higher degree of consideration is
required from an administrative authority, cannot be accepted.
34. Further, it may be noticed that most of the objections which
were filed qua the draft notification, were filed by the political parties
through representatives and not by the individual residents of the Municipal
Councils/Municipal Corporations concerned. Similar issue was raised before
this Court in CWP-10349-2008 titled as Baldev Raj vs. State of Punjab and
others, decided on 11.07.2008, which dealt with the issue of delimitation of
wards as well. Relevant paragraph-37 of the said judgment is as under.
“37 Petitioners in all these petitions seem to be
political workers who may be associated with one or
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -37-
& connected casesthe other political parties. No material has been
placed on record to indicate that any right of the
petitioners is infringed in any manner. The only right
of a citizen in the matter of election is to exercise
franchise according to his/her free will and choice.
This right of the petitioners remains intact irrespective
of the fact whether there are lesser number of
representatives or more. In some of the petitions, the
grievance of the petitioners is that they are interested
to contest election in a particular ward which has
either been reserved or de-reserved. These are the
individual rights which cannot have precedence over
the larger public interest of holding elections to
democratic institutions which alone can strengthen the
democracy. Since we have observed that there have
been aberrations in applying the constitutional
provisions in the right spirit in some of the
Municipalities, the reservation and allocation of
reserved wards have not been properly done. We hope
and believe that the State Government shall redress to
such complaints and adopt all resuscitative measures
at least for future elections to these democratic
bodies.”
35. A bare perusal of the above would show that while deciding an
issue which falls within the domain of a legislative function of a State, the
larger interest of the people is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of
the political parties which is being agitated through their nominees.
36. In the present case, almost all the objections raised against the
process of delimitation, were raised by the interested political parties only
and not by the individual residents, residing therein who are actually to be
the core part of the delimitation process, this being a democratic society.
That being so, seeking the Government to pass a speaking order by
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -38-
& connected cases
answering each and every objections and giving reasons thereby before
finalizing the process of delimitation, so as to pass final notification and that
too when same is a legislative function which is being performed, cannot be
accepted.
37. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that there
was no stipulation in the draft notification that a map depicting change in the
boundary walls of the wards was kept in the office of the Municipal Council
for perusal of all concerned, it may be noticed that once, reply against said
averment has already been put forth by the respondents in their affidavit,
which has gone unrebutted by the petitioners, the said argument cannot be
accepted to hold that there was no map of the proposed delimitation of wards
so as to hold that no opportunity to the concerned for perusal of same was
made available. The argument that the map was not present there in the
office of the Municipal Council/Corporation concerned along with the draft
notification, cannot be accepted as same will amount to deciding a disputed
question of fact which cannot be gone into by the Writ Court.
38. Qua the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner(s) that once, the rules governing process of delimitation prescribe
a particular method for inviting objections/suggestions and dealing with the
same, the same has to be complied, it may be noticed that there is no quarrel
with regard to said proposition of law but in the present case, the rules
governing delimitation only provide for inviting suggestions/objections
from interested persons for the consideration of the State but the same does
not even in farfetched interpretation would mean that such objections are to
be treated in a manner where each objection/suggestion is to be dealt with by
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -39-
& connected cases
a speaking order. As per said rule, the Government is only required to pass a
final order by taking into consideration the objection filed, which has been
done by the State as reply to that effect considering all objections has
already been filed hence, the said argument raised stands defeated.
39. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the
said issue was raised before the Division Bench of this Court wherein, it has
been held that the objections which have been raised, should be decided by
passing a speaking order. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment in
CWP-7548-2023 titled as Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab and
others, decided on 17.10.2024.
40. It may be noticed that the said judgment came up for
consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-23649-2023
titled as Harish Rai Dhanda Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on
13.12.2024. After considering the said judgment, the Division Bench
distinguished the same based upon the settled principle of law that it is the
requirement of the rules governing has to be seen that what procedure is
envisaged therein in order to adjudge the illegality in the orders and the
similar argument raised that passing of a speaking order on the delimitation
of ward is required, was negativated.
41. Further, judgment being relied upon in Rajesh Kumar Sharma
(supra) was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where
the question of law settled therein was kept open and subsequently, after
considering the said law, the Division Bench distinguished the same while
passing order in the case of Harish Rai Dhanda (supra), which latest
judgment has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -40-
& connected cases
Therefore the judgment being relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner(s) in Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra) to contend that even
while undertaking the process of delimitation of ward, a speaking order is to
be passed against all the objection raised, cannot be accepted in view the of
facts and circumstances mentioned hereinbefore. Relevant paragraph 29 of
the judgment in Harish Rai Dhanda (supra) is as under:-
“29. In the above endeavour, it is apparent on a reading
of the draft rules, whereafters on consideration of the
apposite objections, the impugned notification(s) became
issued, that the exercise of limitation was taint free nor it
breached the Rules (supra). In sequel, the undertakings of
the well purpose of makings the de-limitation exercise,
thus for takings into account the apposite demographic
increases in the wards concerned, rather for
concomitantly the reservation system becoming drawn, as
has been drawn, but has also been achieved. Naturally
also therebys, prima facie, there appears to be no
exclusion of voters in the voters list, even after the
completion of the de-limitation exercise, especially, when
no tangible evidence in respect of the relevant exclusions
has been put forth as such. Even if such a grievance is put
forth, therebys, it was to be ventilated before and also was
to be decided rather only by the Election Tribunal
concerned, who on receiving such a motion, with
averments thereins, that on account of inapt exclusions of
the eligible voters, from the voters list, thus may have
proceeded to declare the election to be vitiated, the same
being materially affected therebys.”
30. However, the said grievance is stated to be neither put
forth before the Election Tribunal concerned, through an
election petition being cast therebefore, nor has been
stated to be under consideration before the State Election
Tribunal. Resultantly therebys, the completed de-
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -41-
& connected cases
limitation exercise, as done, but on the basis of a census,
thus as a necessary precursor of the de-limitation of the
wards taking place, but when naturally also becomes the
hinge for the creation of a reservation roster for
endowing the apposite representations to the
category(ies), whose population size so deserves. In
sequel, the de-limitation exercise, as undertaken but
cannot be faulted on any score, especially, when the
election programme has been announced, election
programme whereof, is un-interfereable in terms of the
expostulations of law made in the verdicts (supra).
Importantly also, when there is no grievance that in
pursuance to the de-limitation exercise, their being any
evident deprivation of the rights of exercising franchise
vis-a-vis any of the voters, therebys, also the de-limitation
exercise cannot be faulted.”
42. Hence, though, the State is not precluded from passing a
speaking order but if the requirement of the rules governing is fulfilled by
the State while performing legislative function, the same cannot be upsetted
only on the ground that the reasons for acceptance/non-acceptance of the
objections/suggestions has not been done and same is good enough to vitiate
the proceedings.
43. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) argues
that even if the question of law was kept open, the same can only be decided
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and not by the Coordinate Bench.
44. It may be notice that judgment in Rajesh Kumar Sharma was
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harish Rai Dhanda
(supra) and same was distinguished, which law has also been upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which means, the subsequent judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court has also been favoured by the
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -42-
& connected cases
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India according to which, the rules governing
legislative function to be performed are to be made applicable keeping in
view the jurisdiction granted therein and nothing further can be added to
interpretation of such rules, so as to include the rules of natural justice in
such a way so as to challenge the legislative power of State.
45. Further, it may be noticed that prior to passing judgment in
Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), where certain directions were given by the
Division Bench qua passing of a speaking order, in an earlier order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-20082-2020 titled as Rinka
Puri and others vs. Union of India and others, Decided on 16.12.2020 on
the question of delimitation of ward and the scope of rules of natural justice
enunciated therein were not considered in Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra).
In paragraph-26 of the judgment in the case of Rinka Puri (supra), the
Division Bench has held that the rules of natural justice cannot be embodied
in a straight jacket formula but rather the are to be seen and applied
depending upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of jurisdiction
being exercised. After considering all the facts, the Division Bench has held
that the rule does not require that personal hearing is to be given to all while
delimiting the wards. Further, the Division Bench held that the scope of
judicial review in cases dealing with legislative function is very limited and
is only to be used to prevent any arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, biasness or any malafides. Relevant paragraphs 25, 26
and 27 of the judgment in Rinka Puri (supra) are as under:-
“25. Keeping in view, the aforesaid ratio of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and followed by the
Full Bench of this Court, we are of the considered
AARTI SHARMA
opinion that both the writ petitions are not maintainable
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -43-
& connected casesin as much as election process has commenced vide
Notifications dated 27.11.2020 and 1.12.2020 issued by
the State Election Commission notifying the programme
holding the general/bye elections of the Municipal
Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar
Panchayats. As reproduced above, the date for
preparation of electoral rolls is upto 9.12.2020, draft of
publication of electoral rolls is by 10.12.2020, last date
for filing claims and objections and disposal of the same
are 16.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 respectively. Final
publication of electoral rolls is on 5.1.2021. Intervention
of this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage, which may
even remotely suggest the stalling of elections, is
improper. The object and purport of introduction of
Chapter IX-A in the Constitution of India by the 74th
Constitutional Amendment 1992 was/is to facilitate the
conduct of elections without putting any hindrance and
taboo which is the fundamental requirement of
democracy. Election to the local bodies is the grass root
of democracy which is a process by which much
decision-making authority is shifted to the lowest
geographic and social levels. Any action of the Court or
any individual which may, by any means, hamper or
obstruct the democratic process is anti thesis to the
spirit of these constitutional provisions.
26. The principles of natural justice are not embodied
rules and they cannot be imprisoned within the strait-
jacket of a rigid formula. The requirements of natural
justice depend on the circumstances of each case, the
nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the official
respondents are acting, the subject matter being dealt
with and so forth. In the present case, scheme and policy
for delimitation of wards has been framed under the
statute, right to file objections and suggestions has been
given to the residents of the Municipal areas. After
consideration of the objections, final notification has
been made. In this view of the matter, principles of
natural justice would not require personal hearing to be
given especially when all relevant circumstances were
taken into consideration before issuing final notification
of delimitation of wards.
27. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very
limited. Judicial review of administrative action is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to
check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully”
and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”.
We find no arbitrariness, irrationality, AARTI SHARMA unreasonableness, bias and mala fide in the action of the 2026.04.01 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -44- & connected cases
respondents. This court will not interfere with the action
of the respondents and the letters/final notifications
impugned in both the writ petitions.”
46. A combined reading of the above would show that the argument
being raised by the counsel for the petitioners that for passing of the
speaking order while deciding the issue of delimitation of wards was
considered and not accepted though, the said judgment was not considered
or brought to the noticed of the Division Bench passing order in Rajesh
Kumar Sharma (supra) and it is under these circumstances, subsequent to
the judgment in Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), another Division Bench in
Harish Rai Dhanda (supra) has held the same that the requirement of the
rules are to be complied with and the rules of natural justice cannot be
extended to mean that like an administrative order, a speaking order is to be
passed dealing with the objections/suggestions while interpreting the word
‘considered’ before passing the final notification regarding the delimitation.
47. One of the argument which has been raised challenging the
process undertaken to delimit the wards of the Municipal Council, Bathinda
is that only the readjustment of the ward concerned is to be done in case,
limits of municipalities were altered or when there is an increase in
population of a particular Municipal Council and the re-adjustment of ward
will mean that only re-adjustment of a particular ward is to be done and not
de-novo delimitation of all the wards of the Municipal Corporation.
48. It may be noticed that the word used in the Statute/rules
governing is ‘readjustment of ‘wards’, same is not limited to one ward and
neither does the language of the rule/Statue suggests that whenever there is
alteration of limits of municipalities or there is an increase in area of a urban
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -45-
& connected cases
local body only one ward or limited number of wards are only to be
readjusted. Once, the boundary of a Municipal Council has been extended,
the re-adjustment of ward which is best suited, is required to be done. In
case, more than one ward is required to be delimited to adjust the incorrect
area or the readjustment of all the wards is needed, the jurisdiction to do so
exists with the State only. The only requirement while carrying out such
process is that such jurisdiction is to be exercised honestly and in a fair play.
In the present case, the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda
were extended which necessitated readjustment of the wards and
readjustment has been done by the State though while readjusting the same
more than one ward has been affected. Hence, this Court finds no illegality
in the process of delimitation of wards undertaken.
49. Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
that the readjustment of more than one ward will be tantamount to initiating
de-novo process of delimitation, it may be noticed that the rules governing
do not put a bar to the State even upon initiation of de-novo process of
delimitation in case, the Government is of bonafide decision that the same is
required to be undertaken for effectively giving the meaning of delimitation
so as to delimit the wards in a manner required as per the provisions of law
of 1995 Order regarding delimitation of wards.
50. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further argues that qua the
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, the last date for filing of objections was
29.12.2025 and the final notification qua delimitation as issued on
31.12.2025 and, therefore, keeping in view the minimal gap given, it can be
presumed that there was no consideration by the State
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -46-
& connected cases
objections/suggestions submitted while finalizing the delimitation of wards.
51. The said argument raised is only a figment of imagination of
petitioner(s). Nothing prevented the Government to give consideration to the
objection raised as there enough time of 48 hours between the last date of
filing of objections and the issuance of final notification. Nothing cogent has
been put on record to show that due consideration was not given. Once, no
such material has been brought to the notice of this Court that there was due
consideration by State upon objections filed, this Court has to accept the
statement of the State that the final notification was issued after due
consideration of all the objections raised unless until proven otherwise. The
notification clearly shows that said notification was issued after exercising
power vested with the Government for delimitation under Section 8 of the
1995 Order.
52. Qua the argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in CWP-7-2026, that there were four different data qua
population which was presented before the Board by the State but the data
was not prepared by doing door to door survey, which amounts to violation
of procedure envisaged for delimitation of wards of Municipal Council,
Aadampur under 1972 Rules, it may be noticed that even if, different data
were given to the Delimitation Board but the Delimitation Board which is
the competent authority decided to delimit the wards based upon the relevant
data put before them, no illegality can be said to be existing in undertaking
of such process. Unless and until, there is a malafide attached to such
allegation that the same has been done with a ulterior motive, the mere fact
that different population data was put before the Board before
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -47-
& connected cases
recommending to undergo process of delimitation, cannot be vitiated as
ultimately the process undertaken for delimitation is within the parameters
envisaged under the 1972 Rules.
53. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that
members which were to be inducted in Delimitation Board were appointed
with the consultation of SDM whereas, the rules stipulates that the members
are to be appointed with the consultation of the Deputy Commissioner.
54. It may be noticed that the members to be inducted in the
Delimitation Board are to be appointed by Deputy Commissioner.
Further, the fact that ultimate approval of the members to be inducted in the
Board was given by the Deputy Commissioner, which satisfies the
requirement of the rules. Further, the Board so constituted was not under
challenge in the said writ petitions until the time the final notification was
issued by the respondents hence, in case the petitioners had any grievance
with regard to constitution of Board, they should have approached to
challenge the same prior to the finalization of the notification rather than
raising the same after the process of delimitation had already been
undertaken on the basis of the recommendations of the Board which is being
put in question at this stage.
55. Further, no prejudice shown to have been caused to the
petitioners, has been brought to the notice of this Court. Once, the challenge
raised to the process of delimitation was after the issuance of final
notification coupled with the fact that no prejudice shown to have been
caused to the petitioners, has been brought to the notice of this Court, this
Court will not like to interfere.
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -48-
& connected cases
56. It may be noticed that in writ petitions bearing CWP
Nos.39677,39740,39751,39752,39760 & 39354 of 2025 and CWP
Nos.3129,3134,3140,4242,01,03,04 & 07 of 2026, the final notification of
delimitation has not been challenged. Once, the final notification has not
been challenged, the same cannot be set aside even otherwise. Hence, in the
absence of any challenge to the final notification delimiting the wards of the
respective Municipal Councils/Municipals Corporations, no ground is made
out for the grant of any relief qua the final delimitation of wards done by the
State of Punjab qua those Municipal Councils/Municipals Corporations.
57. One of the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners is
that the time period of seven days which was provided to file
objections/suggestions should be counted from the date of publication of the
notification in the news paper and not from the date when gazetted
notification was issued.
58. It may be noticed that once gazetted notification has been
prescribed under the rules whereby it is to be notified to general public that
objections/suggestions can be filed and the rules governing do not stipulate
for publication of the same in the news paper, any extra effort made by State
to inform to general public will not give a right to the petitioners to claim
violation of the rules of natural justice. Once, the publication of draft
notification, in the news paper is not envisaged under the rules governing
the issue and it is a matter of fact that gazetted notification was already
published and the objections/suggestions qua the same had already been
filed by concerned except for one person concerned with delimitation
process in Municipal Council, Nayagaon, the argument raised that the time
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-3129-2026 (O&M) -49-
& connected cases
period of seven days is to be counted from the date of publication of
notification in the news paper, cannot accepted so as to hold that there is a
violation of rules of natural justice even qua Municipal Council, Nayagaon.
Nothing has come on record to show as to why, when the other persons
concerned with Municipal Council, Nayagaon have filed 11 objections based
upon the gazetted notification, which objections were also identical to the
objections raised in the writ petitions, it cannot be said that there is a
violation of rules of natural justice as per the delimitation process qua the
Municipal Council, Nayagaon.
59. No other argument has been raised.
60. The order has been dictated in the open Court in the presence of
learned counsel for the respective parties.
61. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances
recorded hereinabove, no ground for interference by this Court is made out
qua the delimitation of the wards of various Municipal Councils/Municipal
Corporations done by the Government of Punjab, which was finalized on or
before 31.12.2025 and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
61. Civil miscellaneous applications pending, if any are also
disposed of.
62. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
March 23, 2026
aarti Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes
AARTI SHARMA
2026.04.01 10:32
Whether reportable : Yes
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
