NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE seventeen petitioners are residents of Byadgi town entitled to vote at the election to the Municipal Council of the town. They pray for the setting aside of various steps in connection with the election of Councillors proposed to be held pursuant to the calendar of events dt. 15th May 1972 issued by the Tahsildar of Byadgi as the Returning Officer. To achieve the said result they also contend that Ss. 11 and 13 of the Mysore municipalities Act, 1964 should be struck down as invalid. ( 2 ) THOUGH there is an express prayer for striking down both the ss. 11 and 13 of the Act, "the same is not pressed as far as S. 11 is concerned and the case of invalidity is limited to S. 13. ( 3 ) S. LL fixes the total number of Councillors for Municipalities in relation to population. The explanation to first sub-section states that population therein means the populatoin as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures are published'. ( 4 ) IT is common ground that the latest available published figures are those relating to the census of 1961 and that according to the same, the total population of Byadgi Municipal area is 13,450. ( 5 ) THE 13th section states that for the purposes of election of Councillors to be elected to fill the seats under sub-sec. (2) of S. ll the Government shall after previous publication, by notification determine (a) the number of territorial divisions into which the Municipality shall be divided; (b) the extent of each territorial division: (c) the number of seats allotted to each territorial division which shall be not less than three and not more than five; and (d) the number of seats, if any, reserved for the Scheduled castes and for women in each territorial division. ( 6 ) THE principal argument to invalidate the said section is that it places in the hands of the Government arbitrary power of determining territorial divisions without reference to any population figures or other considerations which may be relevant for holding of elections. ( 7 ) THE same or similar argument of lack of guidance to the Government in the exercise of its power under S. 13 was raised in the case of allahadad Saheb v. State of Mysore, 17 LR. ( 7 ) THE same or similar argument of lack of guidance to the Government in the exercise of its power under S. 13 was raised in the case of allahadad Saheb v. State of Mysore, 17 LR. 757 and was rejected by this Court: vide paragraphs 6 to 8 of the Judgment at pages 760 and 761 of the Report ( 8 ) MR. Havanur, learned Counsel for the petitioners however states that the reason in support of the argument then advanced was different from the reason now pressed by him. Apart from the fact that a decision by this Court upholding the validity of a statutory provision binds the Court and should be followed it appears to us that even the reason now pressed is not strong enough to invalidate that section. ( 9 ) NOW it will be seen from clause (c) of S. 13 that 5 is the maximum number of seats which could be allotted in respect of a territorial division. First sub-section of Section 11 gives a table of maximum number of members of a council in relation to the population of a Municipality. The result therefore is that there should be atleast as many wards as would elect the total number of Councillors at the rate of five per ward, and that there could be only a maximum number of wards which is sufficient to elect the total prescribed number at the rate of 3 members per ward. When therefore first sub-section of 11th section gives a maximum number in relation to population and 13th Section prescribes the minimum and maximum limit of members who could be elected from each territorial division, a certain relation between members and population necessarily results; that such relationship need be a fixed one is also obvious from the fact that while giving the total number of Councillors sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 prescribes 15 for a population not exceeding 20,000 (which if one refers to s. 3 necessarily means a Municipality with a population of more than 10,000 and less than 20,000), 19 members for a population between 20,000 and 30,000; 23 membres for a population between 30,000 and 40,000; 27 members for a population between 40,000 and 50,000; 31 members for a population between 50,000 and one lakh, and 35 members for a population exceeding one lakh. ( 10 ) THE scheme fixing a lower limit and an upper limit both with reference to population in S. 11 and with reference to number of seats for each territorial division is undoubtedly intended to meet the difficulties in making local adjustments and to declare that a certain flexibility of relationship between the number of candidates and the population is permissible. ( 11 ) IT is also clear from explanation to sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 which we have already referred to, that the population which is relevant is the population ascertained from the latest available published census figures. Sub-sec. (6) of S. 11 states that upon the completion of each census the number of Councillors of each Municipal Council shall be determined on the basis of the population of the Municipality as ascertained at that census, provided that the determinaion of the number as aforesaid shall not affect the then composition of the Municipal Council until the expiry of the term of office of the Municipal Councillors then in office. ( 12 ) THE position therefore is that no change in the number of Councillors is contemplated between the publication of the figures of one decennial census and the first election held after the final publication of the next following decennial census. It stands to reason, in our opinion, that consequently no change in territorial divisions also is contemplated as necessary by the law. The fact that clause (3) of Art. 170 of the Constitution of India which apparently is the model for sub-sec. (6) of S. 11 of the mysore Municipalities Act, also refers to a readjustment of territorial divisions does not in our opinion support an argument that an omission to make reference to territorial divisions in sub-sec. (6) of S. 11l of the Municipalities act should be taken to make it obligatory to change the territorial divisions in connection with every election although the total number of Councillors does not suffer any change. ( 13 ) THE opening words of S. 13 also, which say For the purposes of election of Councillors' would have been different if it was intended that the determination of territorial divisions or a re-determination thereof should be made on the eve of and in connection with every election. ( 13 ) THE opening words of S. 13 also, which say For the purposes of election of Councillors' would have been different if it was intended that the determination of territorial divisions or a re-determination thereof should be made on the eve of and in connection with every election. The fact that opening words of S. 13 describe the election to be an election of councillors to be elected to fill the seats, sub-sec. (2) of S. 11 will not make any difference because sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11 merely says that 'subject to the provision of S. 12, all the Councillors of every Municipality shall be chosen by direct election in the prescribed manner on the basis of adult suffrage'. ( 14 ) IT is common ground that there had been published in the year 1967 a notification giving the five territorial divisions of Byadgi Municipal area and allocating three members for each division. The population ascertained from Government records on the basis of the census of 1961 of the five divisions notified is given as follows in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government: division No. I 2,520; Divn. No. II 2,718; Divn. No. III 2,873; divn. No. IV 2,957 and Divn. No. V 2,682. ( 15 ) IT is however contended on behalf of the petitioners that those figures are inaccurate and that the correct figures are those that are given in a letter addressed by the President of the Town Municipal Council, byadgi to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar dt. 4th May, 1972 which are as follows: ward 1 3,129; Ward 11 1,840; Ward III 2,505; Ward IV 2,458 and ward V 3,518. ( 16 ) THE said letter is a part of the correspondence dealing with the proposal of the Municipality for re-doing the territorial divisions for the purposes of elections to be held this year. That does not appear to have found favour of the State Government. ( 17 ) THE result is that the Notification of territorrial divisions issued in the 1967 (which was the first notification issued under the Mysore municipalities Act, 19641 may be taken to be still in force. That does not appear to have found favour of the State Government. ( 17 ) THE result is that the Notification of territorrial divisions issued in the 1967 (which was the first notification issued under the Mysore municipalities Act, 19641 may be taken to be still in force. The distribution of territorial divisions then made not havng been questioned by anybody, they acquired a statutory force which cannot now be questioned unless the petitioners make out a case that the law requires that a fresh territorial division should be made in connection with every election which case we have already considered and rejected. ( 18 ) THE other argument pressed on behalf of the petitioners is that there is certain ever-lapping of small portions of Wards Nos. I and II, as so notified and also that thereby some difficulty is likely to be caused in relation to the exact ward in which the residents of such over-lapping area should be permitted to vote. It is also pointed out that some correspondence between the Chief Officer of the Municipality and the Returning officer, shows that there have been some errors in the electoral roll of the State Legislature in relation to the Municipal area of Byadsi, and that the Chief Officer, whose duty it is to maintain the list of voters on the basis of the electoral roll under S. 14 of the Municipalities Act, has purported to have rectified those defents. It is argued that the power of correction in relation to the electoral roll prepared under the Representation of the People Act is exclusively that of the authorities functioning under the said Act and that neither the Chief Officer nor the Returning officer in this case could have exercised the said power. ( 19 ) BOTH the matters mentioned above are in our opinion, matters which should properly be made the subject of attack in an election petition if one is filed after the election as one of the grounds falling within s. 23 (l) (d) (iv) of the Act. It is not necessary therefore to go into the same or express any opinion thereon in this Writ Petition ( 20 ) THE Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .