JUDGMENT The petitioners allege that out of 16 Municipal Corporations, to hold elections in 4 or 5 Corporations alone is discriminatory and politically motivated. They also contend that the division of Municipal area into wards and delimitation of the wards is arbitrary and without application of mind, and the preparation of electoral rolls is also not in accordance with law. So far as holding elections in a few Corporations alone and not holding elections to all the 16 Municipal Corporations, no provision of law has been pointed out to us which requires holding of elections to all the Municipal Corporations simultaneously. In the very nature of things since the different Corporations are distinct and individual corporate bodies, there is no reason why elections to them cannot be held at different times. There is therefore, no force in the contention that holding elections to a few Corporations is discriminatory or illegal. So far as the challenge to electoral roll is concerned, the petitioners have failed to point out that the electoral roll have achieved finality and have been so published. On the contrary it was declared by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents that till 23rd November, 1992 when the case was being argued final electoral rolls had not been published for Indore and Ujjain Municipal Corporations. In view of this, challenge to electoral rolls is premature and we need not go into it. That leaves us with the main challenge of the petitioners which is to the formation of wards and their delimitation. It was emphatically argued that several areas in the cities of Indore and Ujjain have been left out of the process of delimitation with the result that there are areas in the cities which do not fall in any of the wards. It was also contended that some area outside the Corporation limits has also been included in the wards. When we enquired at the time of hearing as to which were these areas, the learned counsel took us through the notifications published in the Gazettee showing the division of wards and their delimitation. A perusal of these notifications for the respective Corporations would show that column No. (1) thereof shows the number of the wards and whether it is reserved or unreserved. A perusal of these notifications for the respective Corporations would show that column No. (1) thereof shows the number of the wards and whether it is reserved or unreserved. Column No. (2) enumerates the localities by their name and column No. (3) is the description of the boundaries of the ward·. The petitioners in their effort to demonstrate that certain areas were left out, concentrated on column No. (3) relating to description of boundaries alone. Actually, they referred to the name of a locality mentioned in column No. (2) and tried to show that that particular locality does not fall within the boundaries described in column No. (3). We spent quite a lot of our time with the learned counsel in this exercise. However, the entire exercise turned out to be a wild goose chase. Nothing concrete came out of the whole exercise. So far as the areas to be compact, we have already seen that no specific defect has been pointed out by the petitioners in this respect. So far as the number of voters in each ward is concerned, it is argued that in some wards there are only 2000 voters whereas in some wards there are about 8000 voters. The difference in the number of voters cannot per-se show that the rule of even distribution of number of voters has been violated. For one thing, the distribution has to be "as far as possible" i.e. within practical limits. This Court can only interfere in such things when it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the number of voters has been unevenly distributed, though, it was possible to evenly distribute it, on a purpose, malafide or arbitrarily. The petitioners have, beyond alleging that the number of voters in the wards has not been evenly distributed, have done nothing further to show that this was done arbitrarily or malafide. The number of voters in different wards cannot be expected to be equal as the division of the wards has to be done taking into account several aspects, mainly geographical contiguity and density of population. It cannot be inferred only from the difference in number of voters allotted to the wards that the number of voters had not been evenly distributed. Several factors like convenience of communications, means of transport etc. It cannot be inferred only from the difference in number of voters allotted to the wards that the number of voters had not been evenly distributed. Several factors like convenience of communications, means of transport etc. have to be taken into account while delimiting a ward and it cannot be presumed that only because a ward is constituted with an excessive number of voters than the average or a ward with comparatively small number of voters than the average, would be examples of uneven distribution of voters. Even-ness of distribution cannot be judged only on the basis of numerical strength. It has to be judged on the basis of over all consideration of all the factors going into the division of wards. Petition dismissed.