ORDER : The petitioner claims to raise the issue of re-designation of constituencies as a consequence of the administrative re-organisation of districts. 2. The petitioner, an agriculturist, belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner claims to be living in the Madathukulam Constituency and belongs to the Arunthathiyar Community. The said constituency is a general constituency, while the petitioner prays for it to be re-designated as a reserve constituency for the Scheduled Castes, instead of the Dharapuram Constituency, which at present is reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. 3. The circumstances leading to this claim are that Tiruppur District was carved out from Coimbatore and Erode Districts and inaugurated on 22.2.2009. The result was that the consequent territorial alteration in the districts of Coimbatore and Erode and the new Tiruppur District came into being from out of parts of taluks in the territories of Coimbatore and Erode Districts. A taluk of Madathukulam is also stated to have been created and added to the said new districts. 4. The petitioner claims that the Election Commission of India had designated Madathukulam Assembly Constituency in Coimbatore District to be a general constituency. In terms of the report of the Delimitation Commission of India, the percentage obtaining of Scheduled Caste population in this constituency is 21.94%. On the other hand, the percentage of this community in the neighbouring assembly constituency of Dharapuram is 21.73%. It is in view of the marginally superior percentage of the Scheduled Caste community in Madathukulam Assembly Constituency that the petitioner seeks res-designation of the two constituencies as reserved for Scheduled Castes and General Constituencies respectively. This plea in turn is based on the Delimitation Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), where under Section 9(1)(c), the constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes are to be distributed in different parts of the State dependant on the relative larger percentage of population of the Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner claims to have sent a detailed representation on 1.10.2010 to the first two respondents, being the Secretary of the Election Commission of India and the Delimitation Commission of India respectively and thereafter filed Writ Petition No.28236 of 2010 seeking directions against the said two respondents to dispose of his representation. A direction was issued on 17.2.2011 to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order. A direction was issued on 17.2.2011 to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order. The resultant order is stated to have been passed only on 25.4.2014 by the first respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s representation on the ground that the Delimitation Commission constituted for the purpose had ceased to exist with effect from 1.6.2008. The said order noted that both the constituencies were mistakenly presumed to have a percentage of 21.73% of Scheduled Castes, though as per the 2001 Census, the Dharapuram Constituency had 21.73%, while Madathukulam Constituency had 21.94% of people belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. 5. The petitioner claims to have then taken up the issue of constitution of a fresh Delimitation Commission vide notice dated 31.3.2015, which had evinced no response and it is in these circumstances that the order dated 25.4.2014 is sought to be assailed in the present writ petition, with a direction being prayed for to declare the Madathukulam Constituency as reserve constituency for the Scheduled Caste community. 6. The petitioner has contended that when Coimbatore and Erode Districts were bifurcated and inaugurated, the respondents ought to have taken note of the percentage of Scheduled Caste population in Tiruppur Constituency and delimited the Assembly Constituency for reserving it as Scheduled Caste Constituency, but on the other hand, as per the existing designation of constituencies, Dharapuram Constituency continues to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste community, a status stated to be prevailing for more than four decades now. This is despite the fact that undisputedly, the basis is to be the 2001 Census after adopting the 84th and 87th Amendments to the Constitution of India in the year 2001 and 2003 respectively. This position is to continue to prevail and remain so until a fresh census is taken after 2026 when the re-delimitation would take place. 7. The petitioner pleads that in terms of the Election Commission guidelines as well as the Delimitation Commission guidelines, the reserve constituency for the Scheduled Caste community was required to be worked out, but in fact, these guidelines have been violated. 7. The petitioner pleads that in terms of the Election Commission guidelines as well as the Delimitation Commission guidelines, the reserve constituency for the Scheduled Caste community was required to be worked out, but in fact, these guidelines have been violated. The number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Caste community in the districts has to be worked out separately and thereafter, the Scheduled Caste seats are to be reserved in those constituencies in the districts in which, so far as practicable, the percentage of their population to the total population in the largest, in descending order, equal to the number of Scheduled Caste seats in the district concerned. 8. The petitioner concedes that as per Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, there is prohibition against any challenge to the delimitation of constituencies once the notification is issued, but then the issue had been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Virendra Pratap vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 S.C.C. 764. In the facts of the case, the exercise carried out by the Delimitation Commission regarding allocation of a particular Scheduled Caste constituency was called into question with a direction to the Election Commission to consider the case of Scheduled Tribes and take appropriate steps for their representation in the Lower Houses, both in Parliament as well as State Assemblies, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. This is stated to have resulted in an ordinance being issued by way of a notification dated 13.1.2014, whereby an amendment under Section 6(1) of the Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Third) Ordinance, 2013 (No.10 of 2013) was carried out re-determining the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh for changing the Scheduled Caste constituency. 9. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner thus pleads that even though the Delimitation Commission had ceased to exist from 1.6.2008, a proposal can be sent by the respondents to the President of India for constituting the Delimitation Commission for review of the earlier designated status of the Assembly Constituency as sought for by the petitioner, as otherwise, the Madathukulam Constituency shall remain as a General Constituency upto 2026, even though it has a higher percentage of Scheduled Caste community population than Dharapuram Constituency. 10. 10. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The counter affidavit has been filed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu/fifth respondent herein. 11. A constitutional bar has been pleaded to entertaining the writ petition in view of the provisions of Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate this plea, the relevant provisions of the Constitution are reproduced as under :- “327. Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures.--Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses. 328. Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature.--Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by Parliament, the Legislature of a State may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses. 329. 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 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court. .....” In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is thus pleaded that delimitation exercise cannot be called into question by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Along with the aforesaid provisions, it has been pleaded that Section 10(2) of the said Act also clearly provides that every order of delimitation, once published in the Gazette of India, would have the force of law and would not be called into question in any court. The said provision is reproduced as under :- “10. Along with the aforesaid provisions, it has been pleaded that Section 10(2) of the said Act also clearly provides that every order of delimitation, once published in the Gazette of India, would have the force of law and would not be called into question in any court. The said provision is reproduced as under :- “10. Publication of orders and their date of operation.-(1) The Commission shall cause each of its orders made under section 8 or section 9 to be published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned and simultaneously cause such orders to be published at least in two vernacular newspapers and publicize on radio, television and other possible media available to the public and after such publication in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, every District Election Officer shall cause to be affixed, the Gazette version of such orders relating to the area under his jurisdiction, on a conspicuous part of his office for public notice. (2) Upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court.” 12. The settled legal position which emerges from the aforesaid plea has been enunciated in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 669. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted hereunder :- “20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. 21. Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. 21. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 10(1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same. ... 24. Similarly it may be said here that once the Delimitation Commission has made orders under Sections 8 and 9 and they have been published under Section 10(1), the orders are to have the same effect as if they were law made by Parliament itself. ... 31. In this case it must be held that the order under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Commission Act were to make a complete set of rules which would govern the readjustment of number of seats and the delimitation of constituencies. 32. In this case, the powers given by the Delimitation Commission Act and the work of the Commission would be wholly nugatory unless the Commission as a result of its deliberations and public sittings were in a position to readjust the number of seats in the House of the People or the total number of seats to be assigned to the Legislative Assembly with reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the delimitation of constituencies. It was the will of Parliament that the Commission could by order publish its proposals which were to be given effect to in the subsequent election and as such its order as published in the notification of the Gazette of India or the Gazette of the State was to be treated as law on the subject.” 13. The second respondent is stated to be the authority for delimitation of constituencies constituted under the said Act, which had ceased to exist from 1.6.2008 and thus, the Election Commission is not empowered to alter or re-designate any constituency. The reservation of seats for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies is as per the provisions of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India read with Section 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) of the said Act. The reservation of seats for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies is as per the provisions of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India read with Section 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) of the said Act. Thus, the then Delimitation Commission had delimited the boundaries, including of Tamil Nadu, on the basis of the census figures of the year 2001. The constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes were required to be located in those areas, as far as practicable, where the proportion of their population to the total was comparatively large. There is stated to be thus no quibble over the position emerging in law in these aspects, as also the guidelines issued by the Delimitation Commission. 14. It is in this delimitation process that Erode District was found to be entitled to one Assembly Constituency to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and accordingly, Dharapuram, having the highest percentage of 21.73% of Scheduled Castes, was reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. The Assembly Constituency of Madathukulam fell in Coimbatore District and thus, there was no occasion for comparison between the two constituencies. The exercise of the Delimitation Commission was done as per the demarcation of districts as on 15.2.2004 and the order of delimitation of Tamil Nadu was issued on 13.8.2007. The order came into force with effect from 19.2.2008 and the last general election to the existing Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu was held on the basis of that order. 15. The creation of a new Tiruppur Revenue District and the consequent re-arrangements occurred only in the year 2009, which was a subsequent event. When that subsequent event occurred, there is no provision in law to once again carry out the delimitation exercise. The subsequent exercise can be undertaken only when a fresh census is taken after the year 2026 and duly published and thus, there is no necessity for further re-adjustment of division of each State into territorial constituencies or re-determination of constituencies to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 16. The subsequent exercise can be undertaken only when a fresh census is taken after the year 2026 and duly published and thus, there is no necessity for further re-adjustment of division of each State into territorial constituencies or re-determination of constituencies to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 16. The respondents also pleaded that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 has nothing to do with the present exercise, as that Act was to provide for the inclusion or exclusion from the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and of certain castes and tribes, and for the re-adjustment of representation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies insofar as such re-adjustment was necessitated by such inclusion or exclusion in the census figures of 1971. In the facts of the present case, there is stated to be no inclusion or exclusion of such communities as there is only alteration of revenue districts. Qua the judgment in Virendra Pratap’s case (supra), the factual situation was of an increase in population of Scheduled Tribes by reason of inclusion of fresh communities which were not originally part of the list and thus, in that peculiar situation, directions were passed by the Supreme Court. 17. We have given a thought to the complete matter. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the delimitation exercise which came to an end with the issuance of the notification by the President of India with effect from 19.2.2008 had any error. In any case, there is a constitutional bar under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India in calling into question any such exercise undertaken. 18. It is also not in doubt that the occasion to compare the two constituencies arose (as suggested by the petitioner) only when the new district was carved out from out of the existing two districts, an exercise resulting in the creation of Tiruppur District and its inauguration on 22.2.2009. Thus, it cannot be pleaded that any such subsequent exercise for revenue district division would require the issue to be revisited, which had been completed by the Delimitation Commission. The objective is obvious, i.e. there should be an element of certainty. If this exercise, which was already complete, amounted to a continued reservation of Dharapuram for the Scheduled Caste community, so be it. The objective is obvious, i.e. there should be an element of certainty. If this exercise, which was already complete, amounted to a continued reservation of Dharapuram for the Scheduled Caste community, so be it. The issue would be revisited only on the fresh census exercise to be completed by 2026. 19. The certainty about the delimitation exercise and the inability to assail the same stands settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari’s case (supra). 20. We are also of the view that the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virendra Pratap’s case (supra) is misplaced. As the counter affidavit of the respondents explains, the factual situation in that case was quite different where there was increase in population of the Scheduled Tribes by reason of inclusion of fresh communities which were originally not part of the list and thus, in pursuance to the judgment, the Delimitation Commission was re-constituted to carry out the exercise. 21. In the given facts of the case, the issue is whether one or the other constituency would be reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. There is no increase or decrease of population or constituency, and the Delimitation Commission has proceeded on the basis of the 2001 census and the then existing districts, and the exercise to carve out a fresh revenue district is post the notification issued by the President of India after the delimitation exercise was over. There were only Coimbatore and Erode Districts. It is only on 22.2.2009 that Tiruppur District was carved out from the re-organisation of the districts of Coimbatore and Erode, resulting in territorial alterations in both the then existing districts of Coimbatore and Erode, thus resulting in the new taluk of Madathukulam being also created and added to the new district. 22. We are thus unequivocally of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.