IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Civil Writ Petition No.4893 of 2007 Virender Singh … Petitioner Versus Delimitation Commission and others … Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No.8270 of 2007 Nawal Singh … Petitioner Versus Delimitation Commission and others … Respondents (3) Civil Writ Petition No.16120 of 2007 Shamsher Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Delimitation Commission and others … Respondents (4) Civil Writ Petition No.16121 of 2007 Sumitra and another … Petitioners Versus Delimitation Commission and others … Respondents (5) Civil Writ Petition No.16122 of 2007 Jogi Ram Khedar … Petitioner Versus Delimitation Commission and others … Respondents Date of decision: 26th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA CWPs No.4893, 8270, 16120, 16121 & 16122 of 2007 Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.4893 of 2007; None for the petitioner in CWP No.8270 of 2007; Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWPs No.16120, 16121 & 16122 of 2007; Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. By this common order, five petitions, viz. (1) CWP No.4893 of 2007 titled as ‘Virender Singh v. Delimitation Commission and others’; (2) CWP No.8270 of 2007 titled as ‘Nawal Singh v. Delimitation Commission and others’; (3) CWP No.16120 of 2007 titled as ‘Shamsher Singh and another v. Delimitation Commission and others’; (4) CWP No.16121 of 2007 titled as ‘Sumitra and another v. Delimitation Commission and others’; and (5) CWP No.16122 of 2007 titled as ‘Jogi Ram Khedar v. Delimitation Commission and others’ shall be decided together. In these writ petitions, it has been prayed that the Notification No.282/HR/2007 dated 15th February, 2007 (Order No.39 of Delimitation Commission – respondent No.1) (Annexure P-3) in respect of delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Haryana, especially the part relating to district Gurgaon, be quashed, as the same is against the guidelines and methodology provided under the Delimitation Act, 2002; the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Representation of People Act, 1950. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to consider the objections under Section 11 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 filed by the petitioners. 2 CWPs No.4893, 8270, 16120, 16121 & 16122 of 2007 In pursuance of the Notification issued by the Delimitation Commission, elections to the Parliament from the State of Haryana have already been held. Furthermore, new Legislative Assembly has also been constituted on the basis of recommendations of the Delimitation Commission. Therefore, this Court need not to go into the facts given in the writ petitions, as now it stands concluded by Hon’ble the Apex Court that non-consideration of the objections cannot be re-agitated in a Court of law. A Constitution Bench, in ‘Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others’ AIR 1967 Supreme Court 669, observed as under: “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.” Relying upon the above said observations of the Constitution Bench, recently in ‘Association of Resident of Mhow (ROM) and another v. The Delimitation Commission of India and others’ 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 823, Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under: 3 CWPs No.4893, 8270, 16120, 16121 & 16122 of 2007 “24. The Constitution Bench went to the extent of saying that ‘an examination of Sections 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 ……. The provision of Section 10(4) puts orders under ss 8 and 9 as published under Section 10(1) in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself which ……… could only be done under Article 327, and consequently the objection that the notification was not to be treated as law cannot be given effect to’. CONCLUSION: 25. In the present case, the Commission finally determined the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh after considering all objections and suggestions received by it before the specified date and got published its orders in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the State as is required under Section 10(1) of the Act. The orders so published put them ‘in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself’. Consequently that Notification is to be treated as law and required to be given effect to.” The Notification issued by the Delimitation Commission has already attained finality, as on the basis of the same not only the electoral rolls were prepared but elections to the Parliament from the State of Haryana and the Haryana Vidhan Sabha have also been held. Hence, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners and the aforesaid writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 26, 2010 rps 4