JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents authorities to retain the Zila Parishad Ward Tikkar in its original form i.e. as existing in the year 2010 and the orders to the contrary, be quashed and set-aside. Certain undisputed facts may be noticed. 2. The delimitation process for the Zila Parishad Tikkar Ward was concluded on 20.8.2015. However, based upon the objections raised by the petitioner, delimitation qua the constituencies of Zila Parishad Shimla including Tikkar Ward was set-aside by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide his order dated 9.9.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to complete the delimitation process in accordance with Rule 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short Election Rules). However, before these objections could be decided, the State Election Commission vide notification dated 6.10.2015 issued the Model Code of Conduct and vide another notification dated 9.10.2015 the State Election Commission had given effect to Clause 12.1 of the Model Code of Conduct which inter-alia provided as under: “12.1. The structural, classification or area of the Panchayats and Municipalities shall not be altered during a period of one hundred twenty days ending on the date on which the five year term of the said institutions are due to expire, no decision taken earlier shall be implemented during this period.” 3. In compliance to the order of remand, the Deputy Commissioner again issued the final order of delimitation on 15.10.2015 qua the constituencies of Zila Parishad, Shimla which included the Zila Parishad Ward, Tikkar. In the meanwhile, certain writ petitions came to be filed before this Court assailing therein the delimitation process. However, vide judgment dated 28.10.2015 writ petitions were dismissed as having rendered infructuous in view of notification dated 9.10.2015 (supra). 4. It is averred that it was after passing of the judgment by this Court on 28.10.2015 that the State Election Commission vide notification dated 2.11.2015 withdrew Clause 12.1 (supra) as had been given effect to vide notification dated 9.10.2015. In the meantime, the petitioner assailed the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.10.2015 by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 6.11.2015. It is alleged that the respondents-authorities on 6.11.2015 itself set into motion delimitation process qua Zila Parishad Wards in question. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner assailed the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.10.2015 by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 6.11.2015. It is alleged that the respondents-authorities on 6.11.2015 itself set into motion delimitation process qua Zila Parishad Wards in question. 5. On 9.11.2015 the proposal for delimitation was required to be kept open for inspection in the office of the concerned Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayats. However, as the proposal qua delimitation was not received, the same was not done. It is further averred that majority of the Panchayat Secretaries of the Gram Panchayats falling within the Zila Parishad Ward, Tikkar have categorically stated that till 12.11.2015 no proposal for delimitation of Zila Parishad had been received by the concerned Gram Panchayats and the copies of such letters have been annexed as Annexure P-11 with the petition. At the same time, it is also averred that some of the persons did object by filing objections and the same were rejected without application of mind in a slip shod and cursory manner vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 and the delimitation qua Zila Parishad Ward Tikkar and other Zila Parishad Wards in District Shimla have been retained as had been previously detailed vide letters dated 3.10.2015 and 15.10.2015, respectively. 6. Based upon the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has sought quashing the notification dated 2.11.2015 (Annexure P-15) whereby the State Election Commission withdrew Clause 12.1 as had been given effect to vide notification dated 9.10.2015 (Annexure P-8). In addition thereto, the petitioner has also sought quashment of order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-13) whereby respondent no. 2 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and the further notification issued on 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-14) whereby he passed the final order of delimitation, as would be evident from the relief clause which reads thus:- "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-15, 16 i.e. notifications dated 2.11.2015 (whereby Election Commission withdrawn notification dated 9.10.2015). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to implement Annexure P-15, 16 i.e. notifications dated 2.11.2015. (iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-13, 14 i.e. office order dated 16.11.2015 and letter dated 16.11.2015. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to implement Annexure P-15, 16 i.e. notifications dated 2.11.2015. (iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-13, 14 i.e. office order dated 16.11.2015 and letter dated 16.11.2015. (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to implement Annexure P-13, 14 i.e. office order dated 16.11.2015 and letter dated 16.11.2015. (v) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to retain Zila Parishad Ward Tikkar in its original form as existing in the year 2010." 7. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Deputy Commissioner, Shimla (respondents no. 1 and 2) have filed joint reply wherein they have raised certain preliminary objections and thereafter contested the claim of the petitioner on merits. The factual sequence of events has not been denied. It is averred that there was no procedural lapse on the part of the respondents either at the time of inviting or while deciding the objections regarding delimitation and in support of their claim, have relied upon the objection filed by the petitioner to contend that the proposal for delimitation was given wide publicity. In addition thereto, it has been averred that e-mail of draft notification of Zila Parishad Ward Tikkar was sent to the concerned executive officer Panchayat Samiti-cum-Block Development Officers for compliance and wide publicity was made in press and notification was also affixed in Zila Parishad office and DPO Office and this is the usual procedure of communication with the BDO Office. 8. As regards the notification dated 9.10.2015 and subsequent notification dated 2.11.2015, it is averred that these notifications have been issued by the State Election Commission and have no effect on the delimitation of Zila Parishad as it is only applicable to the re-organization of Gram Panchayat. 9. The Election Commission (respondent no. 3) has filed its separate reply wherein it is averred that in pursuance to the provisions enshrined under Article 243E(3)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 120 (2) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State Election Commission has to conduct elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions before the expiry of five years term which was to expire on 21.1.2016. Therefore, in order to complete the election process, the Commission requires about 120 days to complete the statutory requirement and, therefore, enforced Clause 12.1 organizational-status-quo of the Model Code of Conduct so that the structural classification or area of the Panchayat and municipalities would not be altered during the period of 120 days ending with the date on which the five years term of the said institutions were due to expire. Accordingly, the notification dated 9.10.2015 was issued. However, thereafter, the Commission received requests from the Department of Urban Development and Department of Panchayati Raj vide their letters dated 2.11.2015 whereby they had requested the Commission to enforce the Clause 12.1 of the Model Code of Conduct only from the date of implementation i.e. 9.10.2015 or else it would result in delimitation and reservation in respect of those Panchayats which were altered due to inclusion of the areas in certain Municipalities, creation of Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala etc. The request was considered and the Commission found justification in the same and, therefore, in order to avoid fresh delimitation, the clarification/amendment was issued to implement the clause. The intention of the Commission was to enforce the Clause 12.1 of the Model Code of Conduct with immediate effect on 9.10.2015 as finds mention in notification itself but was constrained to amend the same in view of representations mentioned supra which then led to issuance of notification dated 2.11.2015. 10. During the pendency of the petition, three persons who claimed to have contested the elections, moved an application being CMP No. 6571 of 2016 seeking their impleadment as parties and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.8.2016 and the applicants were impleaded as respondents no. 5 to 7 in the writ petition. These respondents have not chosen to file separate reply and during the course of arguments have adopted the reply as also the arguments addressed on behalf of the official respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 11. There can be no gainsaying that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features example Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review etc. 12. 11. There can be no gainsaying that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features example Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review etc. 12. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another vs. Union of India and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 399, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “94. The trite saying that 'democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people' has to be remembered for ever. In a democratic republic, it is the will of the people that is paramount and becomes the basis of the authority of the Government. The will is expressed in periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage held by means of secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the voter expresses his choice or preference for a candidate. "Voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue" as observed by this Court in Lily Thomas vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha, (1993) 4 SCC 234 quoting from Black's Law Dictionary. The citizens of the country are enabled to take part in the Government through their chosen representatives. In a Parliamentary democracy like ours, the Government of the day is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The peoples' representatives fill the role of lawmakers and custodians of Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances………” 13. It was on account of 73rd amendment to the Constitution by which Part-IX consisting of Article 243 to Article 243(O) has been introduced in the Constitution. The Constitution of Panchayats has been prescribed under Article 243-B and same reads thus: “243B. Constitution of Panchayats (1) There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1) Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.” 14. Constitution of Panchayats (1) There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1) Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.” 14. It is in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution that one has to examine the provisions of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act’) H.P. Panchayati Raj Rules or for that matter the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short Election Rules) as these have been enacted so as to bring these in conformity with the amended provisions of 73rd amendment of the Constitution. 15. Section 8 of the Act, provides for Constitution of Gram Panchayats and reads thus: “8. Constitution of Gram Panchayats:- (1) There shall be a Gram Panchayat for a Gram Sabha and every Gram Sabha shall, in the prescribed manner, elect from amongst its members a (Pradhan and Up-Pradhan) of the Sabha who shall also be called the (Pradhan and Up- Pradhan) of the Gram Panchayat and shall also elect from amongst its members an Executive Committee called the Gram Panchayat consisting of such number of persons not being less than seven and more than fifteen, including (Pradhan and Up-Pradhan) as the Government may by notification determine: Provided that the number of members excluding (Pradhan and Up-Pradhan) to be assigned to each Gram Sabha, shall be determined on the following scale:- (a) with a population not exceeding 1750 .. five (b) with a population exceeding 1750 but not exceeding 2750 .. seven (c) with a population exceeding 2750 but not exceeding 3750 .. nine (d) with a population exceeding 3750 but not exceeding 4750 .. eleven (e) with a population exceeding 4750 .. five (b) with a population exceeding 1750 but not exceeding 2750 .. seven (c) with a population exceeding 2750 but not exceeding 3750 .. nine (d) with a population exceeding 3750 but not exceeding 4750 .. eleven (e) with a population exceeding 4750 .. thirteen Provided further that the number of members of a Gram Panchayat, excluding (Pradhan and Up-Pradhan) shall be determined in such a manner that the ratio between the population of the Gram Sabha and the number of seats of members in such a Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Sabha area: Provided further that the member of the Panchayat Samiti, representing a part or whole of the Gram Sabha area shall also be the member of the concerned Gram Panchayats and shall have the right to vote. (2) Seats shall be reserved in a Gram Panchayat:- (a) for the Scheduled Castes; (b) for the Scheduled Tribes; The number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, same proportion to the total number of seats in the Gram Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the Sabha area bears to the total population of the Sabha area: Provided that in case no reservation of seats is possible as aforesaid due to small population of the Scheduled Castes and the population of Scheduled Castes of the Sabha area is atleast five percent of the total population of the Sabha area, one seat shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes in such a Gram Panchayat: Provided further that where there is no eligible candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes to be elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat, no seat shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes: Provided further that in non-tribal areas where there is Scheduled Tribes population in a Gram Sabha, seats shall be reserved for such members of the Scheduled Tribes within the reservation provided for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the determination of seats to be reserved amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be in proportion to their population in that Gram Sabha. Explanation.-The expression “non-tribal area” for the purpose of this proviso shall mean the areas other than the Scheduled Areas specified in relation to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Explanation.-The expression “non-tribal area” for the purpose of this proviso shall mean the areas other than the Scheduled Areas specified in relation to the State of Himachal Pradesh. (3) [One-half] of the total number of seats reserved under sub-section (2) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3-A) [One-half] (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 Gram Panchayat shall be reserved for women). (4) The State Government may, by general or special order, reserve such number of seats for persons belonging to Backward Classes in a Gram Panchayat, not exceeding the proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the Gram Panchayat as the population of the persons belonging to Backward Classes in that Gram Sabha area bears to the total population of that area and may further reserve (one-half) of the total seats reserved under this sub-section for women belonging to Backward Classes. (5) The seats reserved under sub-sections (2), (3), (3-A) and (4) shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the Sabha area in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) If for any reason the election to any Gram Panchayat does not result in the election of required number of persons as specified in sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner, shall within one month from the date on which the names of the elected persons are published by him under section 126 arrange another election to make up the deficiency.” 16. Section 124 of the Act, reads thus: “124. Territorial Constituencies.- For the convenience of the election and also after every increase or decrease of the Panchayat area, the Deputy Commissioner shall, in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government:- (a) divide the Panchayat area into as many single member territorial constituencies as the number of members are required to be elected: (b) determine the extent of each territorial constituency; (c) determine the territorial constituency or constituencies in which seats are reserved under this Act. 17. Chapter-II of the Election Rules, deals with the delimitation of Constituencies of Panchayats and the relevant Rules contained therein reads thus: “DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES OF PANCHAYATS 3. 17. Chapter-II of the Election Rules, deals with the delimitation of Constituencies of Panchayats and the relevant Rules contained therein reads thus: “DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES OF PANCHAYATS 3. Gram Sabha area to be divided into constituencies.- (1) For the purpose of holding of election of members to a Gram Panchayat the Sabha area shall be divided into constituencies. (2) The number of constituencies under sub-rule (1) shall be deter-mined in accordance with the provisions of section 8. 4. Limits of constituencies.-(1) As far as practicable each constituency shall have equal population and each constituency shall be geographically compact and contiguous in areas and shall have natural boundaries, such as roads, paths, lanes, streets, streams, canal, drains, jungles, house No. ridges or such other marks which can easily be distinguished. (2) The constituency shall be delimited from the map of the Gram Sabha starting from North towards East and ending towards South to West direction. (3) one member shall be elected from each constituency. (4) The limits of each constituency shall be defined in all four directions as follows:- (i) Bounded on the North by........................................... (ii) Bounded on the South by.......................................... (iii) Bounded on the East by............................................ (iv) Bounded on the West by........................................... 5. Proposal for delimitation of constituencies and its publication.- The Deputy Commissioner or any other officer, authorised by him in this behalf shall cause to be published a proposal for delimitation of constituencies by dividing a Gram Sabha area into constituencies and shall also indicate the territorial limits of each such constituency and shall keep the proposal open for inspection in the office of the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti within the territorial jurisdiction of which such sabha area falls and by affixing a copy of the same at two conspicuous places within such sabha area for inviting public objections thereon, within 7 days. 6. Disposal of objections and final order.-The Deputy Commissioner, or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, on receipt of objections, if any, under rule 5 shall inquire into the same and shall consider them within a period of seven days or such a shorter time as may be fixed by the Government and final order of delimitation of constituencies shall be made by him only after recording brief reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the objections. 7. 7. Name and number of constituency.-Each constituency shall be known by the number given to that constituency, serially and it shall also be given a name, if practicable. 8. Delimitation of constituencies of a Panchayat Samiti.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall divide the Panchayat Samiti area into as many single member territorial constituencies as the number of members is required to be elected under sub-section (3) of section 78. (2) While delimiting the constituencies of a Panchayat Samiti, constituency of the Gram Panchayat shall be a unit. The constituencies shall be delimited from the map of the Panchayat Samiti area starting from North towards East and ending towards South to West, and every constituency of a Panchayat Samiti shall be assigned a serial number and the name of the Constituency of Panchayat Samiti. The name of constituency of a Panchayat Samiti may be assigned on the name of a Gram Sabha having largest population in that constituency. (3) The limits of each constituency shall be defined in all four directions as follows:- (i) Bounded on the North by.................................... (ii) Bounded on the South by................................... (iii) Bounded on the East by.................................... (iv) Bounded on the West by.................................... (4) The Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, shall cause to be published a proposal for delimitation of constituencies by dividing a Samiti area into single member constituencies and shall also indicate the territorial limits of each such constituency and shall keep the proposal open for inspection in the office of the Panchayat Samiti and in each of offices of Gram Panchayats falling within the Panchayat Samiti area and by affixing copy of such proposal at two conspicuous places in each Sabha area for inviting public objections thereof, within seven days. (5) The Deputy Commissioner, or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf on receipt of objections, if any, under sub-rule (4) shall inquire into the same and shall consider them within a period of seven days or such shorter periods as may be fixed by the Government and final order of delimitation of constituencies shall be issued by him only after recording in brief the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of such objection. 9. 9. Delimitation of constituencies of a Zila Parishad.- (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall divide the Zila Parishad area into as many single member territorial constituencies as the number of members are required to be elected under sub-section (2) of section 89. (2) While delimiting the constituencies of Zila Parishad, Sabha area shall be a unit. The constituencies shall be delimited from the map of the Zila Parishad area starting from North towards East and ending towards South to West and every constituency shall be assigned serial number and the name. The name of constituency may be assigned on the name of a Gram Sabha having the largest population in that constituency. (3) The limits of each constituency shall be defined in all four directions as follows:- (i) Bounded on the North by.................................... (ii) Bounded on the South by................................... (iii) Bounded on the East by..................................... (iv) Bounded on the West by..................................... (4) The Deputy Commissioner, shall cause to be published a proposal for delimitation of constituencies by dividing a Zila Parishad area into single member constituencies and also indicate the territorial limits of each such constituency and shall keep the proposal open for inspection in the office of the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and in each of the offices of Gram Panchayats falling within the Zila Parishad area and by affixing a copy of such proposal at two conspicuous places within each Sabha area for inviting public objections thereon, within seven days. (5) The Deputy Commissioner on receipt of objections, if any, under sub-rule (4) shall inquire into the same and shall consider them within a period of seven days and final order of delimitation shall be issued by him only after recording in brief the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of such objections. 10. Appeal.-Any elector aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner may file an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner within a period of 10 days and who, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant shall decide the same within a period of 15 days and communicate his orders thereon to the Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner shall be final. 11. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner shall be final. 11. Final publication of delimitation of constituencies.-(1) The delimitation made under rules 6, 8 and 9 shall be amended in the light of the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, if any, made under rule 10 and the delimitation shall be finalised within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the proposal in this behalf. A copy of the final orders of the delimitation of constituencies of the Panchayats shall be affixed on the notice boards of the offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat and at such other places as the Deputy Commissioner may decide and the copies of the same shall also be sent to the State Election Commission and the State Government. (2) An elector may obtain a copy of the final delimitation order by making an application to the Deputy Commissioner or to the Secretary of the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, who shall make available the same to the said elector on payment of rupees five per page or part thereof against cash receipt.” 18. The aforesaid provisions make it crystal clear that a specific procedure has been prescribed under the statutory rules and, therefore, there is no possibility of making any deviation therefrom by the authorities concerned. 19. Now, the further question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the procedure envisaged for proposal of delimitation of Zila Parishads is mandatory or directory. While determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory, in addition to the language used therein, the Court has to examine the context in which the provision is used and the purpose it seeks to achieve. It may also be necessary to find out the intent of the legislature for enacting such a provision and the serious and general inconveniences or injustice to persons relating thereto from its application. The provision is mandatory if it is passed for the purpose of enabling the doing of something and prescribes the formalities for doing certain things. 20. In Dattatraya Moreshwar vs. The State of Bombay and Others, AIR 1952 SC 181 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that law which creates public duties is directory but it if confers private rights it is mandatory. 20. In Dattatraya Moreshwar vs. The State of Bombay and Others, AIR 1952 SC 181 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that law which creates public duties is directory but it if confers private rights it is mandatory. Relevant passage from this judgment is quoted below: “It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of the statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provision of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of legislature, it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done.” 21. In State of U.P. and Others vs. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether the provision involved in the said case was mandatory and held as under: “For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature, the Court may consider, inter-alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.” 22. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur vs. Municipal Board, Rampur, AIR 1965 SC 895 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whether a provision is mandatory or directory, would, in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the intent of the law-maker and that has to be gathered not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequence which would follow from construing it in one way or the other. 23. 23. In Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 SCC 403 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 89 of the J&K Representation of People Act, 1957, held that the difference between a mandatory and directory rule is that the former requires strict observance while in the case of latter, substantial compliance of the rule may be enough and where the statute provides that failure to make observance of a particular rule would lead to a specific consequence, the provision has to be construed as mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme court held as under:- “In order to find out the true character of the legislation, the court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question is to sub-serve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of the law is required to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory….Whenever the statute provides that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that the failure to compliance with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow.” 24. On the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law, it can conveniently be held that in order to declare a provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance of the provision could render entire proceedings invalid or not. Further, whether the provision is mandatory or directory, depends upon the intent of Legislature and not upon the language for which the intent is clothed. 25. Examined in the light of the law referred to above, this Court entertains no doubt that the procedure as prescribed under Chapter-II of the Election Rules is mandatory and is, therefore, required to be scrupulously followed. Statutory provisions have a very serious repercussion and it, therefore, implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to such provisions. 26. Statutory provisions have a very serious repercussion and it, therefore, implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to such provisions. 26. It is not in dispute that it was in exercise of the powers under Rule 10 that the Divisional Commissioner had initially vide order dated 9.9.2015 and thereafter subsequently vide order dated 6.11.2015 set-aside the entire process of delimitation of the constituencies of Zila Parishad, Shimla on the ground that this exercise was in violation of Rule 9 of the Election Rules (supra). Pertinently, though, vide subsequent order dated 6.11.2015, the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted, yet, this was not followed by an order of remand, however, that part of the order as passed by the Divisional Commissioner can only be taken to be an oversight having no effect on the merits of the case. However, at the same time, this Court will have to fall back on the initial order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 9.9.2015 as to what precisely was required to be done by respondent No. 2 after the order passed by him had been set aside, the relevant portion whereof reads thus: “In view of the above discussions, the appeal is accepted and the order for final delimitation issued qua the constituencies of Zila Parishad Shimla, District Shimla is set aside and case is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla with the direction to complete the delimitation proceedings afresh as per Rule 9 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. It will also be appropriate for the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to direct the Block Development Officers, Panchayat Secretaries and District Panchayat Officer concerned to display the draft notification on the notice board in the presence of two independent witnesses and send a certificate to this effect to them for record purposes. A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner Shimla through special messenger for taking further action and case file of this Court be consigned to the Record Room after due completion.” 27. From the aforesaid extracted portion of the order, it would be evidently clear that respondent no. A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner Shimla through special messenger for taking further action and case file of this Court be consigned to the Record Room after due completion.” 27. From the aforesaid extracted portion of the order, it would be evidently clear that respondent no. 2 in order to complete the delimitation proceedings afresh and thereby comply with the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was required to ensure: (i) that the process of delimitation is undertaken afresh as per Rule 9 of the Election Rules; (ii) ensure that the Block Development Officers, Panchayat Secretaries and District Panchayat Officer concerned, display the draft notification on the notice board in the presence of two independent witnesses and send a certificate to this effect to him for record purposes. 28. In order to satisfy myself as to whether these directions had in fact been complied with in letter and spirit, the records of the Deputy Commissioner were summoned. The records reveal that immediately after passing of the order by the Divisional Commissioner on 6.11.2015 and even before the receipt of copy thereof, a note in vernacular was put up to the Deputy Commissioner, the English translation whereof reads as under: “In the office of District Panchayat Officer Kindly peruse: With reference to the appeal filed by Dr. Sushant Deshta, S/o Sh. Devender Deshta, R/o village Khangta, P.O. Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., Sh. Ritesh Keprat S/o Sh. Hariman Prakash Keprat, R/o village and Post office Purag, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla and Sh. Gopal Sharma S/o Sh. Vasudev Sharma, village Moonga, P.O. Chamba, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, H.P. and others against the Notification dated 15.10.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner regarding delimitation, Ld. Divisional Commissioner on 6.11.2015, in the presence of District Panchayat officer, other officials of the office and appellants set aside and quashed the Notification dated 15.10.2015 as the Notification regarding re-constitution of the Zila Parishads has not been issued in accordance with the provisions of Act/Rules. In this regard it is submitted that notifications regarding delimitation of the wards of Zila Parishad, Shimla have already been issued twice earlier. Therefore, in compliance of the orders of the Ld. Divisional Commissioner dated 6.11.2015, notification regarding delimitation will have to be issued afresh and it will not be desirable to wait for the written orders of Ld. In this regard it is submitted that notifications regarding delimitation of the wards of Zila Parishad, Shimla have already been issued twice earlier. Therefore, in compliance of the orders of the Ld. Divisional Commissioner dated 6.11.2015, notification regarding delimitation will have to be issued afresh and it will not be desirable to wait for the written orders of Ld. Divisional Commissioner because very little time is left for the election of the Panchayati Raj institutions and delimitation of constituencies is a lengthy process. It is further submitted that notification regarding delimitation of the Panchayati Raj Institution was issued on 20.8.2015 and appeal against the said notification could be filed before the Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner from 21.8.2015 to 30.8.2015. During this period 10 appeals were filed before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner which was heard by him on 9.9.2015. While deciding the aforesaid appeals, he observed that wards of Zila Parishad have been notified by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the Census of 2011 whereas in the draft notification, ward and villages were notified as per the elections held in 2010, which leads to uncertainty as to whether the Deputy Commissioner entertained the objections from the general public or not. He has pointed out in his order that as per the provisions of rule 9(4) and 9(5), a draft proposal was required to be prepared at the first instance and thereafter objections/queries of the public were to be received. Final notification was to be issued after considering the objection & passing appropriate orders regarding objections He also observed that proposal regarding the delimitations were not prepared as per rules and public was not given appropriate opportunity to file the objections. He accepted all the aforesaid appeals and set aside the orders of Deputy Commissioner regarding delimitation of the wards of Zila Parishad with the direction to start afresh the delimitation process as per Rule 9 of the Panchayati Raj (Election) Act, 1994. Further, Block Development officers, Panchayat Secretaries and District Panchayat Officers were directed to display the draft notification on the notice board in the presence of two independent witnesses. Complying with the aforesaid orders of Ld. Divisional Commissioner, final proposals of delimitation of wards of Zila Parishad as existed in 2010 were considered as the draft proposals and accordingly on 3.10.2015, draft proposals regarding delimitation were reissued. Complying with the aforesaid orders of Ld. Divisional Commissioner, final proposals of delimitation of wards of Zila Parishad as existed in 2010 were considered as the draft proposals and accordingly on 3.10.2015, draft proposals regarding delimitation were reissued. On 15.10.2015, after hearing the objections received in this regard, notification was issued by Deputy Commissioner and appeal against the said notification could be filed before the Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner w.e.f. 16.10.2015 to 25.10.2015. During this period, 3 appeals were filed before Ld. Divisional Commissioner which were heard by him and on 6.11.2015, he set aside the orders of Deputy Commissioner. He also observed in his order that the Deputy Commissioner did not comply the orders passed by his office on 9.9.2015 and the same discrepancy was noticed in the notification regarding delimitation issued on 3.10.2015 which was found in the draft notification issued on 7.8.2015 and the orders passed by him have not been adhered to. In this regard it is submitted that Ld. Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner ordered that the objections raised by the appellants be included in the proposals and thereafter draft notification regarding the de-limitation be issued. After hearing the objections received on these draft notifications and passing an order qua their appropriateness. The orders be included in the final publication and the notification be issued. Sir, in compliance of the orders of Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner, proposal of delimitation of the wards of Zila Parishad has been prepared as per Section 124 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and as per the provisions contained in the Rule 5, 8, 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. (flag “K”) and copies of proposal regarding delimitation of wards will be forwarded to the offices of Zila Parishad, Shimla, all Panchayat Samitis and Gram Panchayats for inviting objections and same will be affixed on the notice boards by the secretaries of respective Zila Parishads/ Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayats’ in the presence of two independent witnesses whose signatures will also be obtained. Further concerned secretaries of Zila Parishads/ Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayats will furnish certificate in this regard. To complete the further proceeding in respect of de-limitation of wards, the following schedule shall be followed:- S. No. Particulars of proceedings Prescribed time period Authorized officer/place 1. Publication of the delimitation process of the wards of Zila Parishad. 6.11.2005 By the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla 2. To complete the further proceeding in respect of de-limitation of wards, the following schedule shall be followed:- S. No. Particulars of proceedings Prescribed time period Authorized officer/place 1. Publication of the delimitation process of the wards of Zila Parishad. 6.11.2005 By the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla 2. Displaying the lists of the wards of Zila Parishad for perusal w.e.f. 7.11.2015 to 13.11.2015 (7 days’) Offices of the concerned bodies 3. Hearing of the objections in respect of the delimitation of the wards of Zila Parishad. 16.11.2015 By the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla 4. Passing of the final orders by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the publication of delimitation process of the wards of Zila Parishad after hearing the objections raised in this respect. 16.11.2015 By the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla 5. Filing of the appeal against the final orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the publication of delimitation process of the wards of Zila Parishad after hearing the objections raised in this respect. w.e.f. 17.11.2015 to 26.11.2015 (with in 10 days’) To the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla 6. Decision regarding the appeals by the Divisional Commissioner 27.11.2015 to 1.12.2015 By the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla 7. After deciding the appeals by the Divisional Commissioner, final publication regarding the delimitation of the wards 2.12.2015 By the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla File is submitted for favour of consideration, approval and signatures, please. Sd/- 29. A perusal of the aforesaid noting reveals that the respondents even before the receipt of the copy of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner very well knew and understood the content and directions passed by the Divisional Commissioner whereby the proposal regarding delimitation of wards was required to be forwarded to the offices of Zila Parishad, Shimla, all Panchayat Samitis and Gram Panchayats for inviting objections and same were to be affixed on the notice boards by the Secretaries of respective Zila Parishads/Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayats’ and this was to be effected in the presence of two independent witnesses whose signatures were to be obtained. 30. However, the further scrutiny of record reveals that practically no such exercise, in fact, had been undertaken by the respondents. 30. However, the further scrutiny of record reveals that practically no such exercise, in fact, had been undertaken by the respondents. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the proposal regarding delimitation for inviting the objections was affixed on all notice boards by the Secretaries of the concerned authorities and further there is no document evincing the signatures of two independent witnesses that were required to be obtained, which clearly indicates that the directions passed by the Divisional Commissioner had not at all been complied with before issuance of final order of delimitation. 31. No doubt, some objections had been filed. However, from a closer scrutiny of these objections, it transpires that though some of the persons could lay their hands on the proposal regarding delimitation and had filed their specific objections. While some of the persons filed random objections without even having any knowledge regarding the proposed delimitation and had clearly stated so about the non display of the proposal regarding delimitation. 32. It is also borne out from the record that three persons i.e. Sunder Singh Nainta, Suresh Salakta and Pratap Zinta filed three separate objections, but the contents thereof were the same and reads thus: “To The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla. Subject: Objections with respect to the delimitation of the Zila Parishad wards/ constituencies of the Panchayati Raj Institutions for the year 2015. Sir, With reference to your office letter no. PCHSML/Delimitation Ward 2015-2232-42 regarding the de-limitation of the Zila Parishad, Ward Tikkar, hereby submit our objections as follows: 1. As per the census of 2011, the total population of the Zila Parishad ward Tikkar in 2010 was 23459 which comprised the seven Panchayats of Rohru, Vidhan Sabha constituency viz., Sheel, Bral, Katlah, Karchari, Karasa, Ukhali, Mahaidali and Shekhal respectively with the total population of 9443 and 8 Panchayats’ of Jubbal Kotkhai i.e. Kativan, Kutari, Pujarali No. 3, Dharara, Hanstari, Pujarali No. 4, Sharontha and it constituent a single ward. New ward of Seema Rantadi has been carved out of aforesaid seven Panchayats with populations of 9443, Lower Koti & Munchar Panchayat of Arhal ward and Samoli and Semma Rantad; Panchayats of Dhagoli Ward. The total population of this ward is only 17369 whereas the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar area having population of 14016 has been annexed in Kotkhai. We object this move. The total population of this ward is only 17369 whereas the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar area having population of 14016 has been annexed in Kotkhai. We object this move. If new ward is required to be made, then it should be carved out from the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar area which have the highest population of 14016. 2. That the 8 Panchayats of aforesaid Tikkar ward, proposed to merge with Kotkhai area, having different geographical conditions, means of communication, transport and administrative access. 3. That if the delimitation of the aforesaid ward of Zila Parishad has been undertaken on the basis of the Vidhan Sabha constituencies, whether it has been implemented in the entire Shimla District? If no, then restore the status of 2010 in respect of this ward too. 4. That the Seao ward of Gram Panchayat, Pujarli No. 4 which falls in the Vidhan Sabha constituency of Rohru has been included in the Kotkhai constituency. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid objection, the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla is requested to issue the appropriate orders in the interest of general public. Thanking you. Applicant Date : 12.11.2015 Place: Shimla Sd/- Sunder Singh Neta.” 33. One Neelam Saraik also filed objections, which reads thus: “To The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla. Subject: Regarding objection with respect to the delimitation of Zila Parishad ward, Tharola. Sir, With reference to subject cited above, it is submitted that presently, it has been proposed to denotify the Zila Parishad ward, Tharol, Development Block, Jubbal-Kotkhai and to annex it in the Tikkar and Kalbog. Further, Panchayats of Jai Peeri Mata Ward have also been proposed to be included in them. Due to these alterations, Tharola ward will cease to exist which will be against the geographical and social conditions of this area. Apart from this, it will have an adverse effect at the administrative level. Proposed ward will be divided into two different Development Blocks and Sub Divisions which will create many hardships for people in getting their work done. Similarly, representatives of people will also face difficulties in executing the work of public. This adjustment will lead to many difficulties. Therefore, I completely disagree with this process and the status of 2010 be maintained. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid intention and feelings of general public, I, as an elected representative and in full state of mind, file my objection in this regard. This adjustment will lead to many difficulties. Therefore, I completely disagree with this process and the status of 2010 be maintained. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid intention and feelings of general public, I, as an elected representative and in full state of mind, file my objection in this regard. If necessary, you can call me to present my views personally. I will always be available for that. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Neelam Saraik.” 34. One Ritesh Kaprate also filed random objections, which reads thus: “To The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. Subject: Regarding Delimitation of Tharola Ward, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. Sir, This is in reference to your office notification No. PCH-SML/delimitation ward 2015-2232-42 for following objections:- 1. It is submitted that above mentioned notification regarding delimitation is without jurisdiction and against provision of law, especially when the State Election Commission vide its latest notification dated 09.11.2015 has clarified that the notification dated 9th October, 2015 issued by the State Election Commission will have its prospective effect and the subsequent notification are not sustainable under the law. 2. It is submitted that the authorities has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 (4) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, especially when the proposed draft of the area required to delimited from the area of Zila Parishad was neither published nor intimated to the respective affected Panchayats. The reasonable opportunity for raising the objections and hearing was not properly provided. Therefore, your good-self is requested to restore the status of 2010 in larger public interest. Thanking you. Yours sincerely, Dated : 13-11.2015 Place : Shimla. Sd/- (Ritesh Keprate).” 35. Whereas Ajay Goandka, Prem Raj Janartha, Ajay Tegta, Shamsher Sunta, Hitesh Dhanta, Virender Nainta, Nishant Kumar, Rajat Chauhan, Ankur Chauhan and Pushkar Chauhan though filed separate objections, but the contents thereof is verbatim the same and reads thus: “Dated : 13.11.15 To The Deputy Commissioner, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Subject:- Objections w.r.t. notification dated 6.11.2015 vide : PHC-SML/Delimitation/ Ward-2015-2232- 42. Dear Sir, It is submitted to your kind self that I intend to file objections for the above captioned matter regarding delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward, Tikkar (Sub-division, Rohru) as under:- 1. Subject:- Objections w.r.t. notification dated 6.11.2015 vide : PHC-SML/Delimitation/ Ward-2015-2232- 42. Dear Sir, It is submitted to your kind self that I intend to file objections for the above captioned matter regarding delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward, Tikkar (Sub-division, Rohru) as under:- 1. That the Panchayats as mentioned in the draft delimitation notification of Tikkar ward i.e. Dharara, Hanstari, Kadiwan, Kuthari, Pujarli-3, Pujarli-4, Sharontha & Tikkar falls in Rohru Sub Division and development block whereas other remaining nine panchayats falls in Jubbal block & with Sub-Division, Theog. 2. That the Panchayats which have been proposed to merge with Tikkar ward are geographically and topographically separated by physical barriers which are not easily accessible. 3. That the delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward on the basis of parliamentary constituency is against the established principles of law and is thus unconstitutional. 4. That it is apparent from the perusal of notification dated 09.10.2015 from the office of Election Commission that there shall not be delimitation of Zila Parishad wards in the 2015 Panchayat elections. 5. That the draft notification in question has been notified in violation of established procedures of law, as the order passed by Ld. Divisional Commissioner dated 06.11.2015 whereby Ld. Div. Commissioner has quashed and set-aside the order for final delimitation issued on 15.10.2015 by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. 6. That the proposed draft notification is not viable in its present form as it shall create a situation of pandemonium among the residents of concerned area as Tikkar ward will fall in two different blocks and it will further increase the complexity. 7. That it is apparent from the entire series of events which has conspired till date that some political motives as well as an element of favourism is involved for the benefit of some politically influential persons. It is, therefore, desired keeping in view the aforementioned facts that the status of year 2010 be maintained in the interest of law and justice. Yours sincerely, Sd/- Ajay Gondka S/o Sh. Khushi Ram Gondka, Vill. Gujandli, P.O., Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla (HP).” 36. The Deputy Commissioner, i.e. respondent no. 2 instead of deciding these objections individually, invented a noval procedure of having a joint statement of all the objectionists prepared and the same reads thus: “JOINT STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OBJECTIONIST. Dated : November 16, 2015. Khushi Ram Gondka, Vill. Gujandli, P.O., Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla (HP).” 36. The Deputy Commissioner, i.e. respondent no. 2 instead of deciding these objections individually, invented a noval procedure of having a joint statement of all the objectionists prepared and the same reads thus: “JOINT STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OBJECTIONIST. Dated : November 16, 2015. We are placing on record Annexure A-1 which is a copy of statement stating that till dated 9.11.2011, no publication of the drat notification pertaining to delimitation of Ward Tikkar, proposed vide letter no. PCHSML/delimitation/Ward-2015-2232-42, dated 6.11.2015 was received and hence was not affixed in the concerned Panchayat areas as is required under the provisions of law and moreover, statutory time period for filing objections is to be calculated thereon, i.e. after affixation has been effected. We are also placing on record copy of Model Code of Conduct (as Annexure A-2) dated 6th October, 2015 pertaining to State Election Commission, Himachal Pradesh in which Section 12.1 reads as under:- “The structural, classification or area of the Panchayats and Municipalities shall not be altered during a period of one hundred and twenty days ending on the date on which the five years term of the said institutions are due to expire, no decision taken earlier shall be implemented during this period.” It is also averred that the draft Notification regarding the delimitation is without jurisdiction and the provisions of law as first proviso of clause 2.1 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayats and Municipalities Model Code of Conduct, 2015 provides that the Commission may enforce different provisions of this Code on different dates and hence Commission enforced Clause 12.1 “Organizational Status Quo” of the said Code on 9th October, 2015 with immediate effect and the Commission had no intention to enforce the said Clause retrospectively. It means that Model Code of Conduct” was in force from 9th October, 2015. Moreover, Election Commission in its detailed Notification No. SEC-16- 70-2014-4513-15, dated 2nd November, 2015 has stated that Notification dated 9th October, 2015 by the State Government, if not given effect, the delimitation of the Wards in respect of affected Panchayats and Municipalities will have to be under tan de-novo and Commission will have to generate the new draft electoral rolls as per delimitation, which will further delay the Election process (Annexure A-3). It is further averred that objectionists fail to understand by any stretch of imagination that on which grounds the draft notification dated 6.11.2016 has been prepared as the Ld. Divisional Commissioner on dated 6.11.2015 has quashed and set-aside the order for final delimitation issued on 15.10.2015 and automatically all proceedings thereto ought to have been stand quashed. Hence, it is apparent on the fact of record and from the entire series of events which has conspired till date that there is a major procedural lapse in the entire process so initiated. It is, therefore, prayed in this premise that status-quo of the year 2010 be maintained for the sake of larger public interest and in the interest of law and justice. R O & A C Sd/- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMLA. Objectionists: 1. Sd/- Susheel Gautam, Adv. 2. Sd/- Ritesh Keprate. 3. Sd/- Neelam Saraik. 4. Sd/- Mohinder Singh. 5. Sd/- Sunder Singh Nainta. 6. Sd/- Hitesh Dhanta.” 37. This joint statement appears to have been got signed by only six of the objectionists and decided by a common order dated 16.11.2015, which reads thus: “Office Order Subject: Representation/Objections on the proposed draft of delimitation of Zila Parishad ward Shimla circulated vide letter no. PCHSML/Delimitation/ward-2015-2232-42 dated 6.11.15. The proposed/draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla was issued vide letter No. PCHSML/Delimitation/ward-2015-2232-42 dated 6.11.2015 in compliance with the Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner Shimla order dated 6.11.2015. This draft proposal was issued by also taking into consideration the objections/suggestions made by the applicants to the Hon’ble Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on the final notification made by undersigned on 15.10.2015. This draft notification of dated 6.11.2015 of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla was circulated to the public through respective Zila Parishad office, BDO office and Gram Panchayat institutions to be made public for objection to all the concerned Panchayat Samitis and Gram Panchayat of District Shimla w.e.f. 7.11.2015 to 13.11.2015. The general public was also asked to submit their objections if any. The date of hearing of these objections was fixed on 16.11.2015 in the office of undersigned after giving reasonable time. The draft notification was made as per the provisions of the Section 124 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and all the provisions of this section were adhered strictly. On the above proposed draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla 15 (fifteen) objections are received. The draft notification was made as per the provisions of the Section 124 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and all the provisions of this section were adhered strictly. On the above proposed draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla 15 (fifteen) objections are received. The representatives were given opportunity of being heard and their written statements was also recorded. After perusal of the record placed before me objections raised by the representatives were appreciated and dealt under Rule 6 of H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rule, 1994 as follows:- 1. It was objected that the draft notification was not sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats and the area of the ward is not compact and contiguous. After considering the facts it is concluded that while preparing the draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla, utmost care have been given to make each Zila Parishad ward Topographically and Geographically compact, contiguous, well connected by roads, telecommunication and natural boundaries. All 15 objection were received for this ward only. It is also mentioned here that the area of Zila Parishad ward Seema Rantari is a part of old Socio-geographic area from the time of pre-independence. This area is situated on the right and left side of the Pabber river. This area falls under Sub-division, Rohru and also Development Block, Rohru. As stated above and in para-2 due opportunity to the public was provided to represent on the draft. 15 (fifteen) objections are presented by the representatives by due date i.e. 16.11.2015, is itself a proof of that. 2. It is also objected that the due process has not been adopted while preparing and notifying the draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Wards and procedural lapses are committed. It is worthwhile to mention here that the draft notifications of delimitations of Zila Parishad Shimla circulated for objection on 7.8.2015 and on 3.10.2015 were on the accepted final proposal for the delimitation of Panchayati Raj Institutions on which the election were held in year 2010. The provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 are strictly adhered to. Hence, no procedural lapses are committed while preparing and notifying the draft proposals of delimitation earlier as the proposal was to seek suggestions or objections on the existing Zila Parishad Wards. 3. The provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 are strictly adhered to. Hence, no procedural lapses are committed while preparing and notifying the draft proposals of delimitation earlier as the proposal was to seek suggestions or objections on the existing Zila Parishad Wards. 3. It was also objected that the draft proposal of delimitation of Zila Parishad ward can not be made in the light of State Election Commission notification dated 9.10.2015. In this context, it is clarified that the State Election Commission has clarified vide letter no. SEC-16- 68/2011-I-4661 dated 3.11.2015 that their notification dated 9.10.2015 enforcing clause 12.1 of the model code of conduct is not applicable on delimitation of wards within Panchayats. In view of the above observations all the 15 number of objections received against the delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward, Tikker are rejected as this ward has been constituted in the larger public interest keeping in view the Topographical and Geographical compactness, Historical, Cultural, Socio-political aspects, Natural barriers and connectivity with transportation and telecommunication not to forget the existing administrative sub-division and Development Block, Rohru. The objections submitted are hence, rejected and the draft notification is made final. The notification of delimitations of the Zila Parishad ward be finally notified. Dated : 16.11.2015 Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. ” 38. The contents of the aforesaid order makes it clear that in totality as many as 15 objections had been received by the Deputy Commissioner, yet majority of objections as had been raised therein have not even been dealt with in the impugned order. This is clearly evident from the perusal of the objections and the decision taken thereupon. 39. It would be noticed that the objections as referred to in para 32 supra, specifically pertained to the annexation of 8 panchayats of Tikkar Ward in Kotkhai and it was specifically stated that if at all new ward is required to be made then it should be carved out from the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar area having the highest population of 14016. It was also pointed out that the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar ward that were proposed to be merged with Kotkhai were having different geographical conditions, means of communication, transport and administrative access. Similar objection was raised qua inclusion of Seao ward of Gram Panchayat, Pujarli No. 4 in the Kotkhai constituency. 40. It was also pointed out that the 8 Panchayats of Tikkar ward that were proposed to be merged with Kotkhai were having different geographical conditions, means of communication, transport and administrative access. Similar objection was raised qua inclusion of Seao ward of Gram Panchayat, Pujarli No. 4 in the Kotkhai constituency. 40. As regards the objections referred to in para 33 (supra), the proposed delimitation was challenged on the ground that though it has been proposed to denotify the Zila Parishad Ward, Tharol, Development Block, Jubbal-Kotkhai and to annex it in the Tikkar and Kalbog by inclusion of Panchayats of Jai Peeri Mata Ward, however that would result in Tharola ward being obliterate as it would cease to exist and same would be against the geographical and social conditions of this area. It was also pointed out that apart from the above, it will also have an adverse effect at the administrative level and proposed ward would result in division of two different development blocks and sub divisions which would create many hardships for people in getting their work done. Similarly, representatives of the people would also face difficulties in executing the work of the public and such adjustment is bound to lead many difficulties. 41. The objections as referred to in para 34 (supra) have been filed randomly wherein it has been categorically averred that the proposed delimitation is without jurisdiction and against the provision of law especially when the State Election Commission vide its latest notification dated 9.11.2015 has clarified that the notification dated 9.10.2015 earlier issued by it would have prospective effect and, therefore, the subsequent notification is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Apart from that, it has been categorically submitted that the authorities have failed to follow the procedure prescribed as envisaged under Rule 9 (4) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994, especially when the proposed draft of the area required to delimited from the area of Zila Parishad was never published nor intimated to the respective affected Panchayats. It has specifically been averred that reasonable opportunity of raising the objections and hearing had not been provided for before the order of delimitation. 42. It has specifically been averred that reasonable opportunity of raising the objections and hearing had not been provided for before the order of delimitation. 42. Now, adverting to the objections as raised by the objectors whose names find mention in para 35 (supra), it would be noticed that specific objections against the proposed merger of the Panchayats had been preferred wherein it was pointed out that the draft delimitation notification of Tikkar ward, which otherwise comprises of Dharara, Hanstari, Kadiwan, Kuthari, Pujarli-3, Pujarli-4, Sharontha and Tikkar falls in Rohru Sub Division and Development Block, whereas the other remaining nine panchayats fall in Jubbal block and with sub division, Theog, which are geographically and topographically separated by physical barriers and are not easily accessible. The delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward on the basis of parliamentary constituency was also objected to as being against the established principles of law and thus unconstitutional. It was specifically stated that the proposed draft notification was not viable in its present form and was bound to create a situation of pandemonium among the residents of concerned area as Tikkar ward would fall in two different blocks and it would further increase the complexity. Lastly, it was stated that the proposed delimitation was actuated by political motives and had an element of favouritism with the backing of some politically influential persons. 43. As has been noticed in para 36 (supra), the respondent no. 2 instead of dealing with the objections individually, prepared a joint statement on behalf of the so called all the objectionists wherein none of the aforesaid objections have in fact even been noticed much less considered and obviously, therefore, the decision based upon the so called these objections is no decision in the eyes of law and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 44. In addition thereto, it would also be noticed that the petitioner alongwith the petition has appended as many as eight certificates issued by the Secretaries of various Gram Panchayats certifying that the notification regarding delimitation of wards dated 6.11.2015 had never been received by these Panchayats and pertinently all the certificates have been issued on 13.11.2015 or thereafter. 45. The respondents have failed to place on record of this writ petition any contemporaneous official record so as to controvert these allegations. 45. The respondents have failed to place on record of this writ petition any contemporaneous official record so as to controvert these allegations. More importantly even the records produced before this Court do not indicate that the notification regarding delimitation had been displayed on all the notice boards of the Block Development Officers, Panchayat Secretaries and District Panchayat Officers and have further failed to prove that this exercise was undertaken in the presence of two independent witnesses as had been directed by the Divisional Commissioner in the order of remand. No certificate evincing this fact has been placed on record, meaning thereby, that not only the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was not complied with while undertaking the exercise of delimitation, but even the provisions of Rule 9 were never adhered to and given a complete goby. 46. Now, the crucial question that emerges and calls for attention of this Court is the scope of judicial review in such matters. This Court entertains, no doubt that the power of judicial review in matters of the present kind is limited, but this Court definitely has the competence to examine whether the respondent no. 2 (Deputy Commissioner) has applied its mind to the material available on record before passing the impugned order and further oversee as to whether these findings suffer from vice of arbitrariness or perversity etc. 47. It is settled law that non-consideration of relevant material renders an order perverse. A finding is said to be perverse when the same is not available or supported by evidence brought on record or the same are against law and suffer from vice of procedural irregularities. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as arbitrary. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law. 48. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the pre-requisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision making process of the State has also become an essential part of our Administrative law. 48. It is more than settled that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed or not at all. More than eighty years back, the Hon’ble Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the things must be done in that way or not at all and this has been approved and further expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme court in catena of judgments (Refer: Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another vs. State of Vindh-P, AIR 1954 SC 322 ; Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others, AIR 1964, SC 358; Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad, 1999 (8) SCC 266 ; Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4) SCC 9 ; State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Ambay Cements and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 368 ; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Essar Power Limited, 2008 (4) SCC 755 ; Zuari Cement Ltd vs. Regional Director, ESIC, Hyderabad & Others, AIR 2015 SC 2764 and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs. Sant Singh and Others, 2016 (5) JT 389). 49. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following some other course is not permissible. 50. It would be noticed that as per the provisions contained in Rule 9, the Deputy Commissioner while considering the objections under sub-rule 4 was required to enquire into the same and pass final order of delimitation after recording in brief the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such objection. 50. It would be noticed that as per the provisions contained in Rule 9, the Deputy Commissioner while considering the objections under sub-rule 4 was required to enquire into the same and pass final order of delimitation after recording in brief the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such objection. What the Rule postulates is not that the Deputy Commissioner is to write a detailed judgment nevertheless brief reasons for the decision had to be indicated inasmuch as it is an order affecting the rights of the parties and must therefore be supported by reasons. The order has to be reflective of due cogitation and requisite rumination. It must reflect application of mind, consideration of facts in proper perspective and appropriate ratiocination. The reasons ascribed may not be lengthy, but they should be cogent, germane and reflective. It is to be borne in mind, to quote from Wharton’s Law Lexicon: “The very life of law, for when the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases, because reason is the foundation of all our laws.” 51. The necessity for giving reasons and making the order a speaking one has travelled all along to be a necessary ingredient in a justice delivery system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must be a speaking one. 52. In Daya Ram vs. Raghunath, (2007) 11 SCC 241 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 53. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons.” 54. Towards the impressing need to inform reasons for a decision and the manner in which they are to be informed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly summarized the legal position in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in the following terms:- “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-37). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions." (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process." 55. Therefore, the further question that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order has infact applied its mind and given reasons for his conclusion or has simply arrived at a conclusion without disclosing any reasons. As observed earlier, the real objections which were filed by the objectors were never considered by respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order has infact applied its mind and given reasons for his conclusion or has simply arrived at a conclusion without disclosing any reasons. As observed earlier, the real objections which were filed by the objectors were never considered by respondent no. 2 and even the objections which were so considered by him, are bereft of any reason as is clearly evident from the perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-13) para-37 (supra). However, for better understanding and appreciation of the question posed before me, it will once again be necessary to refer to the impugned order of delimitation, the relevant portion whereof is extracted below:- “1. It was objected that the draft notification was not sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats and the area of the ward is not compact and contiguous. After considering the facts it is concluded that while preparing the draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla, utmost care have been given to make each Zila Parishad ward Topographically and Geographically compact, contiguous, well connected by roads, telecommunication and natural boundaries. All 15 objection were received for this ward only. It is also mentioned here that the area of Zila Parishad ward Seema Rantari is a part of old Socio-geographic area from the time of pre-independence. This area is situated on the right and left side of the Pabber river. This area falls under Sub-division, Rohru and also Development Block, Rohru. As stated above and in para-2 due opportunity to the public was provided to represent on the draft. 15 (fifteen) objections are presented by the representatives by due date i.e. 16.11.2015, is itself a proof of that. 2. It is also objected that the due process has not been adopted while preparing and notifying the draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Wards and procedural lapses are committed. It is worthwhile to mention here that the draft notifications of delimitations of Zila Parishad Shimla circulated for objection on 7.8.2015 and on 3.10.2015 were on the accepted final proposal for the delimitation of Panchayati Raj Institutions on which the election were held in year 2010. The provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 are strictly adhered to. The provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 are strictly adhered to. Hence, no procedural lapses are committed while preparing and notifying the draft proposals of delimitation earlier as the proposal was to seek suggestions or objections on the existing Zila Parishad Wards.” 56. It would be noticed that respondent no. 2 while adjudicating upon the objections made specific note of two objections namely:- (i) the area of the ward is not compact and contiguous; (ii) that the draft notification has not been sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats. But then without discussing and assigning reasons, respondent no. 2 concludes by stating “after considering the facts it is concluded that while preparing the draft notification of delimitation of Zila Parishad Shimla utmost care have been given to make each Zila Parishad ward Topographically and Geographically compact, contiguous, well connected by roads, telecommunication and natural boundaries.” How and on what basis respondent no. 2 arrived at the aforesaid conclusion is anybody’s guess. What weighed and worked in his mind is not reflected in the impugned order and, therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that the extracted portion above is only a conclusion devoid of any reasons. 57. Similarly, as regards the objection regarding draft notification having not been sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats, respondent no. 2 while dismissing the objection has observed as under:- “It is worthwhile to mention here that the draft notifications of delimitations of Zila Parishad Shimla circulated for objection on 7.8.2015 and on 3.10.2015 were on the accepted final proposal for the delimitation of Panchayati Raj Institutions on which the election were held in year 2010. The provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 are strictly adhered to. Hence, no procedural lapses are committed while preparing and notifying the draft proposals of delimitation earlier as the proposal was to seek suggestions or objections on the existing Zila Parishad Wards.” 58. Evidently, even the aforesaid extracted portion is undoubtedly only a conclusion and how the same was arrived at is again anybody’s guess. What was the material available with respondent no. 2 or what prevailed upon him to arrive such a conclusion is again not spelt out. Evidently, even the aforesaid extracted portion is undoubtedly only a conclusion and how the same was arrived at is again anybody’s guess. What was the material available with respondent no. 2 or what prevailed upon him to arrive such a conclusion is again not spelt out. After-all, whether the notifications were sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats or not was a matter which was required to be established and proved by contemporaneous official records and reference whereof was essentially to be made in the impugned order. That apart, how and on what basis respondent no. 2 concludes that there have been no procedural lapses committed while preparing and notifying the draft proposals of delimitation had to be clearly spelt out in the impugned order. 59. Thus, on the basis of impugned order, it cannot be said that the relevant factors have been objectively considered before passing the impugned order. The minimum that was expected of respondent no. 2 was atleast to support his order with reasons which ought to have been cogent, clear and succinct, more especially, when the order passed by him was subject to appeal. As already concluded, the decision being bereft of any reasons is a result of caprice, whim and fancy of respondent no. 2 and suffers from vice of arbitrariness as also non-application of mind. 60. In light of the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed above, it is unnecessary to say anything beyond what has been so eloquently said in support of the need to give reasons for orders made by Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi judicial functions. I only need to reiterate that in a system governed by the rule of law, there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a Court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing transparency and aiding equity. 61. The decision making process of respondent no. 2 is itself so flawed that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand even for a moment. 61. The decision making process of respondent no. 2 is itself so flawed that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand even for a moment. It does not require Solomon’s wisdom to state that it is absolutely sans reasons, bereft of analysis and shorn of appreciation. That apart, the inquiry conducted by respondent no. 2 is in violation of the directions passed by the Divisional Commissioner and cannot otherwise strictly be said to be in compliance to Rule 9 of the Election Rules. 62. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum and, therefore, the order passed by respondent no. 2 is clearly not sustainable in the eyes of law. 63. Though, the learned Advocate General would contend that in case a fresh exercise is directed to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, the same would only result in undoing the things which have already been settled. 64. I am afraid that such contention may be a valid and may weigh with the Court while dealing with service matters, more particularly, matter regarding interse seniority, but the same has no applicability in matters pertaining to elections which have to be decided strictly in accordance with the provisions of law i.e. Act, Rules etc. and these provisions have to be complied with and implemented with its rigours and have to be scrupulously followed. 65. Even otherwise, the aforesaid principle does not apply to the instant case as it is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not approached this Court expeditiously for the relief or has been fence a sitter, who has allowed the things to happen and then approached the Court to put-forth a stale claim and thereby tried to unsettle the settled matters. The final order of delimitation in the instant case was published by respondent no. 2 on 16.11.2015 and the instant petition thereafter was promptly filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2015. 66. The provisions contained in the various legislations including the Panchayati Raj Act, Rules and Election Rules are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of our democracy at grass root level by curbing unprincipled and unethical practices and the rule of law are the basic features of democracy. 66. The provisions contained in the various legislations including the Panchayati Raj Act, Rules and Election Rules are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of our democracy at grass root level by curbing unprincipled and unethical practices and the rule of law are the basic features of democracy. The concept of free and fair elections are necessary concomitant and attribute of democracy. 67. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla dated 16.11.2015 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order passed by respondent no. 2 on 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-13) whereby he rejected the objections to the delimitation is quashed and set aside and consequently the final order of delimitation dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-14) is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to undertake the delimitation of Zila Parishad Ward, Tikkar, afresh, that too, strictly in accordance with the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 9.9.2015 (Annexure P-3) and also in accordance with the rules occupying the field. 68. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.