IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18417 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 23.10.2008 Pawan Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Union of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners, who are residents of Village Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the notification dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P-6), whereby Village Bhirdana has been transferred from Fatehabad Assembly constituency to Ratia Assembly constituency, with a further prayer for issue of direction to the respondents to transfer the said village to Fatehabad Assembly constituency. The said notification has been issued under sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), publishing the order dated 12.2.2007, made by the Delimitation Commission under sub section (2) of Section 9 read with sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, in respect of the CWP No. 18417 of 2008 -2- delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Haryana. The grouse of the petitioners is that Village Bhirdana is very near to Fatehabad town and is away from Ratia town, but in spite of that, it has been transferred from Fatehabad Assembly constituency to Ratia Assembly constituency. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Section 9 (1) (a) of the Act, submits that the Delimitation Commission, while delimitating the constituencies, has to take into consideration the physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience as well as the fact that all the constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas. Learned counsel, while referring to map of District Fatehabad, further submits that Village Bhirdana is just 9 Kms. away from Fatehabad and 25 Kms. from Ratia, but the Delimitation Commission in an arbitrary manner and while violating the spirit of provision of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, transferred the village under Ratia Assembly constituency. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned notification as well as the other material annexed with the petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned notification. Though under the Constitution of India as well as Section 10 (2) of the Act, it has been provided that notification issued under the Act shall not be questioned in CWP No. 18417 of 2008 -3- any Court, but even in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned notification. It is not disputed that while delimitating the Assembly constituencies, the factum of contiguity of villages has not been ignored. Merely because village Bhirdana is near to Fatehabad and far away from Ratia cannot be a ground to transfer the village from Ratia Assembly constituency to Fatehabad Assembly constituency. A town has no relevance. It is the Assembly constituency, which is known by that town. Therefore, distance of a village from a town does not make a difference. It appears that the instant petition has been filed only because Ratia Assembly constituency has been reserved for Scheduled Caste category and the petitioners, who belong to General category, want to go in the area of Fatehabad Assembly constituency. For such a purpose, the delimitation of an area of the Delimitation Commission cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 23, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE