,4 x “3‘3" 3 4 EWW é “$6“ § ‘ pc RTIORARIA .r‘_2 VERSUS $’XW ‘ w.P. N¢5§33 (2005 / Mohd. Akbar I Member of Legislative Assembl State of Chhattlsgarh Aged about 49 years S/O Shrl Mohd Rashld Union of India Through the Ministry of Law and ‘ Justice, New Delhi- 110001 Delimitation Commission of India Nirizachan Sadan, Ashoka Road New' Delhi 1 10001, Through its Secretary State of Chhattisgarh Through the Chief Secretary D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya r Raipur (Chhattisgarh) OE MANDAMUS AND ND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS - l A. L 9 y R/O K.K. Road, Maudhapara, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) XI—HC—22 mm mmmw%a . éswm 5-12-2603 Shri Jitendra Paii, couns at for the petitioner. ShrE v.8. Tiwari, Advccate appears on behaif of Shri Bishma Kinger, standing counsei for the Union of lndia/ respondent No.1. Shri A3. Gaharwar, counsei for respondent No.2. in Shri U.N.S. Deo. Govt, Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. 9r Learned counsei for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the sr \Z ground that his senior has to argue the case who is not available today. The prayer made by learned counsei for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by iearnec counsel appearing for the respondents. The petition is pending since 22—1 1-2005. in View of that, prayer for adjournment made by learned counsei for the petitioner is rejected. w.P.No.5893 of 2905, M.§W.LP.N0.4686 of 2005: l.A.No.10136 of 2005 & H.A.No.101 30 of 20G5. Heard. Learned counset for the respondents contended that notification in exercise of power conferred un‘ er Seotion 9(2)(d) of the Deitmttation Act, 2002 (henceforth “the Act") h s been iseued under sub-eectton (1) of t‘ Section 'iO of the Act and th same was published Vin Gazette dated 2—6—2006 and in local newspap rs. ln View of Section 10(2) of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Com issr'on and others {AIR 1967 sC $63), petitioner is refrained from challenging the division of State of Chhattisgarh into Assembly Co tstftuencies and. therefore, instant petition which challenges the dran pro osals for division of State of Chhattisgarh netted) 7V Wt” “ {1—HC-22 A’WW mm WW inta Assembly Constituensiea which itseQf has merged imo natifisation, cannot be agftated in any Court of Iaw~ Learned counsg! ,fyr the petitioner failed to demonstrate how, in View of the abave‘ the instant w it petiiion subsists. Section 10(2) of i‘ne Act prohibits, commission’s order made under ii w . Section 8 or Section 9 of the t after its publication in the Gazette being challenged in any Court of l W. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma} Kothan' (supra) has ed that objection can be entertained only before date specified under Section ${2) of the Act and after their publication in Gazette, they can no longer be reaglteted in Court of law. in View of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly diemissed. Consequently, M.NV.).P.N0.4686 of 2095, l.A.No.10136 of 2005 & l.A.No.fOl3O of 2005 stand disp osed of. l a Sdl- Lo l“ i , V.K.Shrivastava l Gowri Judge (heann)