Judgment :- B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, C.J. 1. These five writ petitions have been filed seeking to postpone the local body elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats or Gram Panchayats, scheduled to be held in two phases on 16th and 18th October, 2001. 2. In W.P. No. 17049 of 2001, the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 85 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election Department), dated 18.6.2001 is assailed. In W.P. No. 17062 of 2001, the validity of G.O.Ms.(2D) No. 75, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election), dated 24.8.2001, is challenged. In W.P. No. 17189 of 2001, Mandamus is sought for to update the electoral rolls and to stay the election meanwhile. In W.P. No. 17264 of 2001, the correction of voters list is sought for complaining that. Even though a representation has been made on 9.7.2001, the same has not been considered and disposed of. In W.P. No. 17332 of 2001 again challenges the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 18.6.2001. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, interim order is sought for either in the shape of injunction or stay, as the case may be, in effect, postponing the elections till the writ-pleas are heard and disposed of. 3. The first three writ petitions came up for hearing for admission on 19th September, 2001 and Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, has sought for time for instructions till the next day. The matter came up on 20th September, 2001 and in the meanwhile, two latter writ petitions were filed and came before us by seeking lunch motion. All the writ petitions were elaborately heard and are posted this day for orders. 4. While Mr. A.B.R. Janardhanan has appeared in person in W.P. No. 17049 of 2001, learned Counsel M/s. S. Veeraraghavan has appeared for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17062 of 2001, Prof. S. Krishnaswamy has appeared for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17189 of 2001, S. Duraisamy, appearing for Mr. Elangovan for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17264 of 2001 and T. Arulraj, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17332 of 2001, Mr. N.R. Chandran, leaned Advocate General, has appeared for the respondent Government. 5. S. Krishnaswamy has appeared for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17189 of 2001, S. Duraisamy, appearing for Mr. Elangovan for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17264 of 2001 and T. Arulraj, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17332 of 2001, Mr. N.R. Chandran, leaned Advocate General, has appeared for the respondent Government. 5. Elections to local bodies all over the State of Tamil Nadu comprising of 6 Municipal Corporations, 102 Municipalities, 611 Town Panchayats, 29 District Panchayats, 385 Panchayat Unions and 12,618 Village Panchayats are scheduled to be held in two phases on 16th and 18th October 2001. Election notification was proposed to be issued on 20th September, 2001 but because of the pendency of the writ petitions, the same was not issued and is now proposed to be issued on 24th September, 2001, subject, of course, to the result of the Court orders. As already stated, while in W.P. Nos. 17049 and 17332 of 2001, G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 18.6.2001 is assailed, G.O. Ms.(2D) No. 75, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election), dated 24.8.2001 is the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 17062 of 2001. In W.P. No. 17264 of 2001, the petitioner viz. M. Radhakrishan complains that even though representation has been made on 9.7.2001 to the second respondent to correct the voters list but of no avail. W.P. No. 17189 of 2001 is general in nature complaining of the mass scale irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and alleging that more than one crore voters do not find their names in the electoral rolls and that the election to local bodies be ordered only on completion of revision of electoral roll in the entire State of Tamil Nadu. Yet another contention was raised regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines but when the learned Advocate General has intervened and said that Electronic Voting Machines have not been pressed into service in the ensuing local bodies elections, the argument relating to the said aspect has been withdrawn. 6. Now, we are called upon to address on; 1) validity of the electoral rolls in the ensuing local bodies elections; 2) correctness of the rotation of SC/ST/women; and 3) as to whether local bodies elections scheduled to be held in two phases on 16th and 18th October, 2001 are liable to be postponed. 7. 6. Now, we are called upon to address on; 1) validity of the electoral rolls in the ensuing local bodies elections; 2) correctness of the rotation of SC/ST/women; and 3) as to whether local bodies elections scheduled to be held in two phases on 16th and 18th October, 2001 are liable to be postponed. 7. The allegation is that more than one crore eligible voters have been omitted and that the same was projected during the last assembly elections held on 10th May, 2001. Our attention is drawn to several newspaper cuttings as also to the Governors address on 25th May, 2001 on the eve of first session of the newly constituted 12th Legislative Assembly in the State with particular emphasis on the following: “More than one crore eligible voters were prevented from exercising their franchise despite having valid photo identity cards due to deletion of their names from the voters list. This Government will also take up this issue with the Election Commission and arrange to rectify the anomalies before the ensuing polls to the local bodies.” From the said Governors address as also the newspaper cuttings, it is clear that there were anomalies found in the electoral rolls prepared for the last Assembly elections. It is said that the said electoral rolls were prepared during the month of February, 2001. On the petitioners side, it is stressed that the anomalies have not been set right and still persists and that on the basis of the present electoral rolls, the election to local bodies, if allowed to be conducted as it is, it will be farcical and undemocratic as the eligible voters would be deprived of their rightful franchise. Incidentally, it is also argued by Mr. Veerarahavan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17062 of 2001 that not only eligible voters are not enlisted but ineligible voters, including even dead, also find their place in the electoral rolls. But it is not demonstrated as to who the said ineligible voters are. It is also not stated with any accuracy regarding persons and number of eligible voters who are said to have been kept out of electoral rolls. The correctness of the voters list has to be verified constituency-wise and more so for local bodies elections. A general statement that about one crore eligible voters are being deprived of their franchise, cannot do. The correctness of the voters list has to be verified constituency-wise and more so for local bodies elections. A general statement that about one crore eligible voters are being deprived of their franchise, cannot do. The case of the petitioner is that the names of all the deprived eligible voters of one crore and more are missing cannot be said with precision. But, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is some truth in the complaints voiced by the petitioners, that even if the exact number of deprived eligible voters cannot be given with precision, the newspapers reports are not without basis, and that they are corroborated by the statements made by the Governor and Mr. C. Ponnaiyan, Minister for Finance and Law to the effect that large number of eligible voters are not enlisted in the electoral rolls during the last Assembly elections. We see quite an inconsistency in the stand of the Government voicing concern about the irregularity in the electoral rolls prepared on the eve of the last Assembly polls and stating before us now, that everything is perfect with the electoral rolls on the ground that between 25.5.2001 and 24.8.2001 i.e., barely three months, the electoral rolls of all the local bodies in the State have been set right. Excepting the reports of completing the electoral rolls by 24.8.2001 readying for the ensuing local body polls, there is no material placed before us regarding the correction of the mistakes by way of enlisting the eligible voters whose names did not find place in the electoral rolls prepared during the last Assembly elections. It is not that we can make a scrutiny and adjudicate about the said corrections. We are only expressing this for the reason that no such material is placed before us evidencing the correction of the electoral rolls. In this context the statement made by Mr. C. Ponnaiyan, Minister for Finance and Law on the Floor of the House on 13.9.2001 reported in “News Today” to the effect that the Government was forced to use the same Voters List prepared during the previous D.M.K. Government for the forthcoming local body elections due to lack of sufficient time to revise the list assumes importance. C. Ponnaiyan, Minister for Finance and Law on the Floor of the House on 13.9.2001 reported in “News Today” to the effect that the Government was forced to use the same Voters List prepared during the previous D.M.K. Government for the forthcoming local body elections due to lack of sufficient time to revise the list assumes importance. The qualifying date for the ensuing local body polls is January, of 2001 and there is absolutely no objection for basing the said electoral roll, for the purpose of holding the ensuing local body polls. But, since there was admitted irregularities in the said electoral roll in omitting the eligible voters, and even assuming that some exercise had been made by the concerned authorities in three months between May and August, we are of the considered view that the message of seeking corrections had not reached the entire electorate. 8. Now the question arises as to whether in the above circumstances, this Court can annul the election process or postpone the commencement of the election process. Even though there is an extraordinary power for this Court to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there are some inherent limitations and more so, in Election Law. Election Law is clear on this aspect. The analogy of Articles 324 and 329 of the Indian Constitution relating to elections to Parliament and State Legislatures is equally applicable to the local bodies. Even though local bodies have been constituted, yet it had been the experience that self-governance by the elected representatives of the local bodies was not fully followed and instances galore where elections to the local bodies for self governance by the elected representatives were not held for years to come. There are also instances where the bureaucracy ran the local bodies for even more than a decade by postponing the elections by successive amendments because of majority of the respective ruling parties in the respective legislative bodies. That has prompted the enactment of Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, incorporating Parts IX and IX-A in the Constitution comprising of Article 243 with several sub-Articles 243A to 243ZG. While Part IX deals with Panchayats, Part IX-A deals with the Municipalities. Part IX starts with Article 243 and ends with Article 2430 whereas Part IX-A commences with Article 243P and ends with Article 243ZG. While Part IX deals with Panchayats, Part IX-A deals with the Municipalities. Part IX starts with Article 243 and ends with Article 2430 whereas Part IX-A commences with Article 243P and ends with Article 243ZG. Relevant Articles for adjudication are Articles 243D, 243E, 243K, 2430, 243T, 243U, 243ZA and 243ZG. It is apt to extract the said Constitutional provisions. “Article 243D. Reservation of seats. — (1) Seats shall be reserved for — (a) the Schedule Castes; and (b) the Schedule Tribes, and every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the, total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Panchayat area or of the Schedule Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation by different constituencies in a Panchayat. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging, to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Schedule Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (4) The offices of the Chairperson in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide: Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayat at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State: Provided further that not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women: Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level. (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334. (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats n any Panchayat or offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at any level in favour of backward class of citizens. Article 243E. Duration of Panchayats, etc. — (1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1). (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1). (3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed — (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution: Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat. (4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved. 243K. Elections to the Panchayats. — (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Government. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may, by rule, determine. Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like ground as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1). (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. 2430 Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. 2430 Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. — Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State. 243T. Reservation of seats. — (1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality. (4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334. (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334. (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour of backward class of citizens. 243U. Duration of Municipalities etc — (1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Municipality at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1). (3) An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed — (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution: Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period. (4) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved. Article 243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities. — (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in a State Election Commission referred to in Article 243K. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. 243ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. — Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. 243ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. — Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution. — (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) No election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a state. As seen from the above, apart from the other aspects mentioned in the aforesaid constitutional provisions, the provisions relating to tenure of panchayats and municipalities under Article 243A and 243U are very prominent and mandate in no uncertain terms that the tenure of the said local authorities, be it panchayats or municipalities would be 5 years from the date of appointment of its meeting and no longer. It is not disputed that the present tenure of the said local bodies expires on 24th October 2001 and the said local bodies had to be administered by the new elected representatives with effect from 25.10.2001 onwards. 9. We shall now discuss the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court on the aspect of the restraint to be shown in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter relating to postponement of elections on the ground of irregularities in the electoral rolls. a) In Nripendra Bahadur Singh v. Jai Ram Verma, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1992, the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to set aside the election on the ground of irregularities in the electoral roll. The High Court held that as the concerned officers failed in their mandatory duty to correct the electoral roll upto date as required by Section 27 of the Representation of People Act, the said incorrect electoral roll could not, therefore, be deemed to be the electoral roll and the election held on the basis of the said electoral roll is invalid and ultra vires as also void. But the said view of the High Court was set at naught by the Supreme Court holding that the mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in the preparation of the electoral roll cannot be a ground to set aside the election. b) In A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others v. Union of India and others, (1982) 2 S.C.C. 218 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that where election is imminent, High Court must be very cautious and show to interfere and to pass orders for directions postponing the election. It was held by the Supreme Court, “Though the High Court did not lack jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which, its writ jurisdiction is invoked. The imminence of the electoral process is a factor, which must guide and govern the passing of orders in th e exercise of the High Courts writ jurisdiction. The more imminent such process, he greater ought to be the reluctance of the High Court to do anything, or direct anything to be done, which will postpone that process indefinitely by creating a situation in which, the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution The High Courts must observe a self-imposed limitation on their power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or give directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic foundation and functioning of our Constitution.” c) In Inderjit Barua v. Election Commission of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1912, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that unrevised electoral rolls cannot form basis for challenging the election. Approving the statement of law made by the Constitution Bench in A.K.M. Hassan Uzzamans case (supra), it was held in the above case that even if the previous electoral rolls prepared in 1979 were not revised and that the election was being held in 1983, the election could not be challenged. Approving the statement of law made by the Constitution Bench in A.K.M. Hassan Uzzamans case (supra), it was held in the above case that even if the previous electoral rolls prepared in 1979 were not revised and that the election was being held in 1983, the election could not be challenged. d) In Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1233, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge inclusion of any name in the roll is the right conferred on individual and not on political party and that claims for inclusion of names and objections relating to inclusion of certain names in electoral rolls even if not disposed of, the election cannot be vitiated and whatever names are there in the electoral roll on the last date of making nomination is the valid electoral roll for the purpose of conducting elections and the said electoral roll, even if it is defective, cannot form basis for challenging the elections. In the above case, it was also observed: “The fundamental error from which the writ petition suffers is this: The fact that the revision of electoral rolls, either intensive or summary, is undertaken by the Election Commission does not have the effect of putting the electoral roll last published, in cold storage. The revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process, which has to go on, elections or no elections.” The ratio decidendi relating to the above case is that whatever the electoral roll prepared and corrected upto the date of the last date for filing nomination is the electoral roll on which the election can be based and merely because here is no revision of electoral roll or there are some defects, cannot form a basis for holding up the elections. e) In Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 S.C.C. 303 , it was held that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions and postpone the election process. f) In Shyamdeo PD. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3000, it was held by the Supreme Court that illegality or irregularity in the preparation of electoral roll cannot be a ground for declaring an election to be void. However, in the said case, the delay in disposal of objection was deprecated. f) In Shyamdeo PD. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3000, it was held by the Supreme Court that illegality or irregularity in the preparation of electoral roll cannot be a ground for declaring an election to be void. However, in the said case, the delay in disposal of objection was deprecated. Lakshmi Charan Sens case (supra), Narendra Bahadur Singhs case (supra) and H.P.M. Trivedis case (supra) were referred to and in effect it was held that the election process should not be postponed. It was held, “One of the principles underlying the plenary bar on judicial proceedings in election matters created by Article 329 (b) is the urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion.” 10. In view of the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, we reject the plea for postponement of election. 11. Coming to the second point relating to rotation, the Constitution is not specific as for the terms of rotation. That is left for the State. While it is true the rotation period was described as one term of five years, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 157 (Rural Development CI) Department, dated 14.6.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 242 read with Sections 11, 20, 32 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, amending Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995, fixing the period of rotation as every 10 years. The above amendment is applicable to Panchayats. On the same analogy, G.O.Ms. The above amendment is applicable to Panchayats. On the same analogy, G.O.Ms. No. 85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) dated 18.6.2001 was issued in exercise of he powers conferred by Section 303 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, Section 347 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, Section 431 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, Section 430 of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, Section 8 of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Section 8 of Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and Section 8 of Salem City Municipal Corporation Act amending the said rules 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitations of Wards or Divisions and Reservations) Rules 1996 to the effect that the period of rotation shall be ten years. The above notification covers the rotation system relating to Town Panchayats, District Municipalities and also the Municipal Corporations. In view of the same, the rotation system which is to be followed in the ensuing local body elections cannot be said either to be unconstitutional or illegal. In so far as Reservation aspect is concerned, there is no such particular percentage. Reservation is not the basis of the total percentage of population of the said Reserved category and it is not made out before us by any clinching material that there is any violation in the said fixation of seats for the reserved candidates. Mr. Veeraraghavan has also argued that in so far as Chennai Municipal Corporation is concerned, basing upon the percentage of women population and in particular Scheduled Caste women, the post of Mayor ought to have been reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste women. But we do not see any force in the said contention for the reason a reading of the provision does not make out any such priority. The requirement is to provide one third reservation to women and this one third is to be treated as horizontal in view of the specific provision contained in Article 243T (3) the Constitution and out of six Mayoral Posts in the six Municipal Corporations of State of Tamil Nadu, two have to be reserved for women, which constitutes one third of the Mayoral posts and out of the same, one is reserved for SC women and another for women general and this meets the Constitutional requirement. 12. 12. The above adjudication on points 1 and 2 covers Writ Petition Nos. 17049, 17062, 17189 and 17332 of 2001. 13. Coming to the 4th writ petition viz. W.P. No. 17264 of 2001, the complaint is that the voters of one village have to go to some other village to exercise their franchise. The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that such anomaly will be rectified and that the voters of the concerned village dividing into Wards will be allowed to exercise their franchise at their respective areas and that the representation made by the petitioner on 9.7.2001 to the second respondent will be considered favourably. Hence, the second respondent in W.P. No. 17264 of 2001 is directed to rectify the mistake and the voters of the concerned village be permitted to exercise their franchise at their respective polling booths in their respective villages. 14. In view of what is stated supra, we hold that i) that the local body elections scheduled to be held on 16th and 18th October, 2001, are not liable to be postponed; ii) the election programme has to be re-scheduled with election process commencing on 24th September, 2001 and the last date for nomination being 1.10.2001; iii) the voters, who have been enlisted for the Parliamentary elections during October 1999 and who have also been issued with Photo Identity cards and whose names do not fine place in the ensuing local body elections to be held on 16th and 18th October, 2001, shall be enlisted as voters and be allowed to exercise their franchise after due verification of the electoral list, which was followed for the Parliament election in 1999 and also the Photo Identity Cards, which shall be done on an application being made by the aspirant voters without insisting upon any format being filed. However, this exercise shall be done from today till the last date of filing of nomination i.e. on or before 3.00 p.m. on 1.10.2001; and iv) the entitlement of the aspirant voters shall be given wide publicity in electronic media, print media and also by publications of this right in all the Gram Panchayats, Tehsil Offices and Collectorates of State of Tamil Nadu. This electronic and print media publicity shall be done regularly. 15. All the writ petitions are thus disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are dismissed.