JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of Mr.S.A.Gordey, Adv. for Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.B.Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2, Mr.Pradeep Marpakwar, Adv. for Respondent No.3 and Mr.Girish Choubey, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection about maintainability of present petition in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari .vs. Delimitation Commission and Ors., reported in AIR 1967 SC 669 . Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel in respect of maintainability of present petition and also perused the decision of the Apex Court. 3. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute : That the first notification u/s. 9 (1) was issued on 28.3.2006 and final notification u/s. 10 (1) of the Act was issued on 31st July, 2006 and in view of the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Section 10, upon such publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. 4. The observations made by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari (cited supra) in paragraphs 11, 16, 19, 23 and 30 clearly demonstrate that once the De-limitation Commission has made orders u/ss. 8 and 9 and they are published u/s. 10 (1), the orders will have effect of law as if made by the Parliament itself. Therefore, the orders passed u/ss. 8 and 9 and published u/s. 10 (1) would not be saved merely because of use of the expression “shall not be called in question in any Court”. However, due to publication of the order in the Gazette of India, it is to be treated as law made under Article 327; Article 329 and would prevent any investigation by any Court of law. 5. Since we have already held that the petition is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to consider the petition on merits. 6. However, the issue is of public importance, hence, this Court has considered the issue on merits also. 5. Since we have already held that the petition is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to consider the petition on merits. 6. However, the issue is of public importance, hence, this Court has considered the issue on merits also. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document annexed with the petition at page no.96 based on the details of voters of Ramtek Lok Sabha and Nagpur Lok Sabha Constituencies given by the Collector, Nagpur shows that the Ramtek Lok Sabha Constituency, after delimitation, has population of 15.49 % Schedued Caste voters, whereas the Nagpur Lok Sabha Constituency has 20.35 % Scheduled Caste Voters. It is submitted that the Nagpur District has two Lok Sabha Constituencies; one is Ramtek and another is Nagpur and since Nagpur Lok Sabha Constituency has more percentage of Scheduled Castes voters, the Nagpur Lok Sabha Constituency should have been reserved for the Scheduled Caste Category candidate and not the Ramtek Lok Sabha Constituency. 7. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that, in the instant case, petitioner is questioning the procedure adopted by respondent no.5 while reserving the seat for Scheduled Caste in Ramtek Parliamentary Constituency. It is submitted that, u/s. 9 (1)( c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the Constituencies for Scheduled Castes are to be distributed in different parts of the State and the seats are to be reserved for Scheduled Castes in those Constituencies where percentage of their population to the total population is comparatively large. Therefore, while working out allocation of total number of seats of such districts, the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Castes in those districts will also have to be worked out separately. Consequently, the Scheduled Castes seats will be reserved in those Constituencies in the districts in which, so far as practicable, the percentage of their population to the total population is the largest in descending order equal to the number of Scheduled Castes seats in the district concerned. 8. The affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 shows that, on the basis of Census figure of 2001, the Ramtek Parliamentary Constituency has Scheduled Castes Population of 17.53 %, whereas Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency has 15.72 %. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the percentage of Scheduled Caste voters mentioned in the affidavit filed by the De-limitation Commission, which is based on 2001 census. 4 and 5 shows that, on the basis of Census figure of 2001, the Ramtek Parliamentary Constituency has Scheduled Castes Population of 17.53 %, whereas Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency has 15.72 %. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the percentage of Scheduled Caste voters mentioned in the affidavit filed by the De-limitation Commission, which is based on 2001 census. The material placed before us by the petitioner even otherwise is wholly inadequate to hold otherwise, and therefore, even on merits, the petition is devoid of substance. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court (cited supra) as well as considering the Scheme of provisions of the De- Limitation Act, the petition is not maintainable. Even on merits, the petitioner suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.