JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. 1. The Petitioners claim to be members of Scheduled Tribe communities in the State of Goa and they have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, to seek a direction against the Respondents for implementation of reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates in the Assembly Elections to take place this year in the State. 2. The Petitioner no.1 is a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from Sanguem Constituency in the State of Goa, while the Petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are residents of Sanguem, Priol, Quepem, and Nuvem Assembly Constituencies in the State, who claim that maximum number of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes are residents of the said constituencies. 3. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that the Scheduled Tribe population in the State of Goa has been deprived of the benefit of the Constitutional mandate under Article 332 of the Constitution for reservation of Legislative Assembly seats in Goa in proportion to the population of Schedule Tribes in the State. It is contended that the mandate of the Constitution has been violated repeatedly by the Respondents, despite representations made on behalf of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa. 4. The Petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court that a similar grievance was raised by Goa State Schedule Tribe Action Committee by filing Writ Petition No. 230 of 2007, before this Court. By Order dated 04.02.2013, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, directing that a representation made by the Petitioners therein be decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of eight months. The Petitioners highlighted that till date, there was no decision on the representation while the Schedule Tribe population in the State of Goa continued to be deprived of the benefit of reservation mandated under Article 332 of the Constitution. 5. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that on 21.06.2021, Petitioner No.1 made a representation to the Respondents regarding the aforesaid grievance. 5. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that on 21.06.2021, Petitioner No.1 made a representation to the Respondents regarding the aforesaid grievance. On 22.07.2021, the Respondent no.1 i.e. the Election Commission of India, sent a reply to Petitioner no.1, stating that seats in the Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies are reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution and that for the State of Goa, seats in the Legislative Assembly were reserved as per Section 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, (for short, Delimitation Act), on the basis of census figures of the year 2001. It was further stated that the existing extent/status of the Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies as delimited by the then Delimitation Commission, could not be changed till the next delimitation exercise, which is due to be taken up after the first census after the year 2026. Respondent no.1 referred to Articles 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners have sought quashing and setting aside of the said communication dated 22.07.2021, sent by the Respondent no.1. 6. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Scheduled Tribe population in the State of Goa had been wrongly denied the benefit of reservation of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Goa, despite the specific and positive mandate manifested in Article 332(3) of the Constitution. It was further submitted that the aforesaid impugned communication dated 22.07.2021, was not in consonance with the Constitutional mandate and that it amounted to an abdication of responsibility and duty cast upon the Respondents to ensure meaningful and proper representation for the Schedule Tribes population in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa. The learned Counsel emphasized on the language of Article 332(1) and (3) of the Constitution, which mandates that seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of every State and that the number of seats reserved for the said category shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion as the population of the Scheduled Tribes bears to the total population of the State of Goa. 7. 7. Although in the Writ Petition, reference was made to the census of the year 2011, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners conceded that under the Constitutional scheme, the exercise of reserving seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa had to be undertaken on the basis of the census of the year 2001. Yet, it was emphatically submitted that the addition of three more communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Goa on 08.01.2003 by the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 2002, ought to have been taken into consideration to ascertain the population of Schedule Tribes in the State of Goa, even if it was to be done on the basis of the census for the year 2001. Thereupon, the Respondents ought to have undertaken the exercise of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners placed much emphasis on an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 764 , to contend that in the Writ Petition filed before the Supreme Court, concerning reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP), the Union of India and the Election Commission of India were directed to consider the case of Schedule Tribes in the State of UP, both in the Lower House of the Parliament and the State Assembly for reservation of seats. The Petitioners therein were granted liberty to supply necessary details in that regard. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the present Petition could also be disposed of in a similar manner so that if the exercise was carried out expeditiously, reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa, could be specified even for the election to the assembly to take place in the immediate future. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners emphasized on the similarities in the reliefs sought by the Petitioners in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court and in the present Petition before this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners emphasized on the similarities in the reliefs sought by the Petitioners in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court and in the present Petition before this Court. It was emphasized that despite the addition of three new communities in the category of Scheduled Tribes w.e.f. the year 2003, in all the elections held thereafter, the Respondents had failed to carry out the aforesaid exercise expected under the Constitutional scheme, thereby depriving the Schedule Tribe population in the State of Goa of the Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 332 of the Constitution. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also relied upon the Order of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Singh Kunwar & Ors. vs. Election Commission of India, (2007) 7 SCC 234 , wherein it was held that the mandate of Article 332(3) of the Constitution, should always be kept in mind and that this should be the paramount consideration for the Respondent no.1-Election Commission of India. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also relied upon the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Poudyal vs. Union of India & Ors., 1994 Supp(1) SCC 324 , to contend that while delimitation laws under Article 327 of the Constitution may be said to be immune from the judicial test of their validity, but the laws providing reservations in Legislative Assemblies were made under the authority of Article 332 of the Constitution and that, therefore, the provisions of the Constitution dealing with the exercise of delimitation of constituencies and the provisions of the Delimitation Act could not take away the right of the Scheduled Tribe population of the State of Goa under Article 332 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners emphasized that the stand taken by the Respondents before this Court to the effect that in the absence of specific law, seats could not be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe population in the State of Goa was unsustainable and that the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act, pertaining to the carving of territorial constituencies for the Legislative Assembly and the Parliament, could not be interpreted in such a manner that the Constitutional mandate of reservation of seats for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly, stands defeated. On this basis, it was submitted that the present Writ Petition deserved to be allowed. 10. Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for Respondent nos. 3 to 5, vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners. It was stated at the outset that the aforesaid Respondents agreed with the Petitioners that Article 332 of the Constitution mandates reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies. But it was submitted that such reservation of seats has to be implemented in terms of the Constitutional scheme, discernible from Articles of the Constitution dealing with constitution and composition of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, as also conduct of elections and special provisions relating to reservation of seats in the Parliament as well as the Legislative Assemblies. It was further submitted that the provisions of the Delimitation Act were also required to be appreciated in the context of the aforesaid Constitutional scheme, to understand as to the manner in which the mandate of Article 332 of the Constitution is to be implemented. The learned ASG emphasized that the aforesaid Respondents were not disputing the contention of the Petitioners that reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa, is mandated under the Constitution, but it was further emphasized that the same could be achieved only through the Constitutional scheme and not otherwise. 11. The learned ASG specifically referred to Articles 81, 82, 170, 327, 328, 329, 330 and 332 of the Constitution. He also specifically referred to Sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Delimitation Act as also Section 7 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (for short Representation of Peoples Act), to claim that the mandate of reserving seats for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, could be implemented only as per the scheme manifested under the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the said statutes. The learned ASG emphasized that Articles 81, 82 and 170 of the Constitution, provided for the division of each State into territorial constituencies based on the census of the year 2001, further specifying that the census of the year 2001 would continue to be the basis of such constituencies until relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 are published. It was brought to the notice of this Court that although Article 330 of the Constitution pertains to reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of People of the Parliament and Article 332 pertains to the reservation for the same categories in the Legislative Assemblies in the State, Explanation to Article 330 along with the Proviso thereto, covered Article 332 in their sweep. By referring to the said explanation and proviso to Article 330 of the Constitution, it was emphasized that the expression "population" means the population as ascertained in the census of the year 2001, until relevant figures for the first census taken up after the year 2026, have been published. By emphasizing upon the same, the learned ASG submitted that the use of the expression "population" in Article 332(3) of the Constitution ought to be read with the said Explanation and Proviso appended to Article 330 of the Constitution. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021, was based on a proper understanding of the Constitutional scheme. 12. The learned ASG then invited attention to Section 4 of the Delimitation Act which pertains to the duties of the Delimitation Commission, emphasizing that in this provision also, census of the year 2001 was the basis for readjusting the division of each State into territorial constituencies. By referring to Section 8 of the Delimitation Act pertaining to readjustment of number of seats, it was emphasized that the same was to be determined on the basis of the census of the year 2001. It was also emphasized that the census of the year 2001 was the basis for the exercise of delimitation of constituencies to be undertaken by the Delimitation Commission and that under the aforesaid provision, the Delimitation Commission was to publish its proposal for delimitation of constituencies and to consider all objections and suggestions in that regard, including on the aspect of reservation of constituencies for the Scheduled Tribes. It was further emphasized that Section 10 of the Delimitation Act provided for publication of orders of the Delimitation Commission and that under sub-section (2) thereof, every such order upon publication in the Gazette of India, has the force of law and that it cannot be called in question in any Court. It was further emphasized that Section 10 of the Delimitation Act provided for publication of orders of the Delimitation Commission and that under sub-section (2) thereof, every such order upon publication in the Gazette of India, has the force of law and that it cannot be called in question in any Court. At this stage, the learned ASG also referred to Article 329(a) of the Constitution pertaining to the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters, which provides that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies made under Article 327 or 328 of the Constitution shall not be called in question in any Court. 13. On this basis, it was submitted that once the exercise of delimitation had been undertaken by the Delimitation Commission and its Order was published in the year 2008, stating that only one seat was reserved in the Legislative Assembly in the State of Goa for Scheduled Castes and no seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribes, the same could not be called in question in any Court under the said provisions. It was then highlighted that in the present Petition, there was not even a challenge to the order of the Delimitation Commission issued in the year 2008 or the relevant Constitutional provisions, apart from the fact that such a challenge would be highly belated. In this context, the learned ASG also referred to Section 7 of the Representation of Peoples Act, which provides for the Election Commission to specify the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the States. The learned ASG submitted that the Election Commission had also stated under the said provision that there would be no reservation for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly in the State of Goa and that there was no challenge to the same as well. 14. As regards reliance placed on the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court on behalf of the Petitioners, it was submitted that the said Judgments were distinguishable and that the direction given to the Election Commission of India by the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), was on a concession by the Election Commission to consider the case of the Petitioners therein. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), was on a concession by the Election Commission to consider the case of the Petitioners therein. It was emphasized that there was no reference to the Constitutional scheme and the various provisions of the Constitution as well as the Delimitation Act or the Representation of Peoples Act and that, therefore, the said Judgment could not be relied upon by the Petitioners. The learned ASG made submissions with regards to delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court and relied upon various Judgments in support of his submissions. These include: 1. Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 669 2. A. P. Scheduled Castes Welfare Association, Hyderabad & etc. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 SCC OnLine AP 140 3. M. Chandramohan (M/48/2020) vs. The Secretary & Ors., WP(MD) No. 18733 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 15646 of 2020 4. Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 228 5. State of Goa & anr. vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 401 6. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42 7. Sadashivrao Madalik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited vs. Commissioner of Sugar, 2015 (1) Bom CR 237 8. Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 764 9. Anand Singh Kunwar vs. Election Commission of India, (2000) 7 SCC 234 10. Molar Mal (Dead) Through LRs vs. Kay Iron Works (P) Limited., (2000) 4 SCC 285 11. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination vs. Isha Mittal & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 521 15. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the Respondent no.6. He supported the contentions raised by the learned ASG on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 to 5. He further invited attention of this Court to the order of the Delimitation Commission issued in the year 2008, emphasizing that the population of Schedule Tribes in the census of 2001 was found to be only 566. He supported the contentions raised by the learned ASG on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 to 5. He further invited attention of this Court to the order of the Delimitation Commission issued in the year 2008, emphasizing that the population of Schedule Tribes in the census of 2001 was found to be only 566. It was further emphasized that since there was no challenge to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act on the part of the Petitioners, there was no basis for them to claim that a direction could be issued under Article 332 of the Constitution to reserve seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa. It was submitted that such a direction would be in the teeth of the said Articles of the Constitution as also the statutory provisions of the Delimitation Act and the Representation of Peoples Act. It was submitted that the Petition, therefore, deserved to be dismissed. 16. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 1 and 2, submitted that the said Respondents did not dispute that seats were required to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies as per the mandate of the Constitution, but the same could be done only as per the Constitutional scheme envisaged under the aforementioned Articles of the Constitution relied upon by the learned ASG as also the provisions of the Delimitation Act. It was submitted that even when the Supreme Court gave directions on a concession in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) there were Ordinances issued to consider the reservation of seats in the State of UP, but the said Ordinances had lapsed and there was no law holding the field for carrying out the exercise as prayed by the Petitioners. It was reiterated that the prayer of the Petitioners could be considered only after the first census after the year 2026, was conducted and its figures were published. On this basis, the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021, was sought to be justified and it was submitted that the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed. 17. In order to appreciate and deal with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution as well as the relevant statutes. On this basis, the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021, was sought to be justified and it was submitted that the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed. 17. In order to appreciate and deal with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution as well as the relevant statutes. For the purpose of dealing with the said contentions, Articles 170, 327, 328, 329, 330 and 332 of the Constitution are relevant and they read as follows: Article 170 -Composition of the Legislative Assemblies: (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 333, the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than five hundred, and not less than sixty, members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State. (2) For the purposes of clause (1), each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State. Explanation -In this clause, the expression population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published: Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 2001 census. (3) Upon the completion of each census, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine: Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the Legislative Assembly until the dissolution of the then existing Assembly: Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, any election to the Legislative Assembly may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before such readjustment: Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust- (i) the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of the year 1971 census: and (ii) the division of such State into territorial constituencies as may be under this clause. Article 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. Article 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. Article 329 -Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. Article 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; (b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Article 330 -Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People. (1) Seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for- (a) the Scheduled Castes; (b) the Scheduled Tribes except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam; and (c) the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam. (2) The number of seats reserved in any State or Union territory for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union territory in the House of the People as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or Union territory or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory or part of the State or Union territory, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or Union territory. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2), the number of seats reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats allotted to that State a proportion not less than the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the said autonomous districts bears to the total population of the State. Explanation In this article 332, the expression “population” means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published: Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 2001 census. Article 332 -Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. - (1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, except the Scheduled Tribes in the tribal areas of Assam, in Nagaland and in Meghalaya, in the Legislative Assembly of every State. (2) Seats shall be reserved also for the autonomous districts in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam. (3) The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of the State, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved bears to the total population of the State. (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the taking effect, under article 170, of the re adjustment, on the basis of the first census after the year 2026, of the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of any such State shall be, — (a) if all the seats in the Legislative Assembly of such State in existence on the date of coming into force of the Constitution (Fifty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereafter in this clause referred to as the existing Assembly) are held by members of the Scheduled Tribes, all the seats except one; (b) in any other case, such number of seats as bears to the total number of seats, a proportion not less than the number (as on the said date) of members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the existing Assembly bears to the total number of seats in the existing Assembly. (3B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the readjustment, under article 170, takes effect on the basis of the first census after the year 2026, of the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tripura, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly shall be, such number of seats as bears to the total number of seats, a proportion not less than the number, as on the date of coming into force of the Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act, 1992, of members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly in existence on the said date bears to the total number of seats in that Assembly. (4) The number of seats reserved for an autonomous district in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats in that Assembly a proportion not less than the population of the district bears to the total population of the State. (5) The constituencies for the seats reserved for any autonomous district of Assam shall not comprise any area outside that district. (6) No person who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district of the State of Assam shall be eligible for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State from any constituency of that district. Provided that for elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam, the representation of the Scheduled Tribes and non-Scheduled Tribes in the constituencies included in the Bodoland Territorial Areas District, so notified, and existing prior to the constitution of the Bodoland Territorial Areas District, shall be maintained. 18. Sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 of The Delimitation Act, are relevant and they read as follows: Section 4. Duties of the Commission.—The readjustment made, on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971 by the Delimitation Commission constituted under section 3 of the Delimitation Act, 1972 (76 of 1972) of the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the several States and the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State shall be deemed to be the readjustment made by the Commission for the purposes of this Act. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and any other law for the time being in force, the Commission shall readjust the division of each State into territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the People and to the State Legislative Assembly on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year [2001]: Provided that where on such readjustment only one seat is allocated in the House of the People to a State, the whole of that State shall form one territorial constituency for the purpose of elections to the House of the People from that State. Section 8. Readjustment of number of seats. — The Commission shall, having regard to the provisions of articles 81, 170, 330 and 332 and also, in relation to the Union territories, except National Capital Territory of Delhi, sections 3 and 39 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) and in relation to the National Capital Territory of Delhi sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 239AA, by order, determine, — (a) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and determine on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year [2001] the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State; and (b) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the total number of seats to be assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State and determine on he basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1[2001] the number seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State: Provided that the total number of seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (b) shall be an integral multiple of the number of seats in the House of the People allocated to that State under clause (a). Section 9. Section 9. Delimitation of constituencies.- (1) The Commission shall, in the manner herein provided, then distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of 1971 census to single-member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the census figures as ascertained, at the census held in the year 1[2001], having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of the Acts specified in section 8 and also to the following provisions, namely:— (a) all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience; (b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited as to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency; (c)constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes shall be distributed in different parts of the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total is comparatively large; and (d) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total is the largest. (2) The Commission shall— (a) publish its proposals for the delimitation of constituencies, together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of any associate member who desires publication thereof, in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of all the States concerned and also in such other manner as it thinks fit; (b) specify a date on or after which the proposals shall be further considered by it; (c)consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received by it before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, hold one or more public sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks fit; and (d) thereafter by one or more orders determine— (i) the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies, and (ii) the delimitation of assembly constituencies, of each State. Section 10. Publication of orders and their date of operation. Section 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 last 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. (3) As soon as may be after such publication, every such order shall be laid before the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the States concerned. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the readjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order shall apply in relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the case may be, held after the publication in the Gazette of India of that order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in any other law for the time being in force or any order or notification issued under such law in so far as such representation and delimitation are inconsistent with the provision of this Act. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the delimitation orders published in relation to the State of Jharkhand. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the delimitation orders published in relation to the State of Jharkhand. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the representation in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State until the dissolution of the House or of the Assembly, as the case may be, existing on the date of publication in the Gazette of India of the final order or orders of the Commission relating to the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies or, as the case may be, of the assembly constituencies of that State and any bye-election to fill any vacancy in such House or in any such Assembly shall be held on the basis of the provisions of the laws and orders superseded by sub-section (4) as if the said provisions had not been superseded. (6) The Commission shall endeavour to complete and publish each of its orders referred to in subsection (1) in the manner provided in that subsection, within a period not later than 31st day of July, 2008 under section 3. 19. The relevant portion of Section 7 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950, reads as follows : Section 7-Total number of seats in Legislative Assemblies and Assembly constituencies-(1) [Subject to the provisions of [sub-sections (1A), (1B) and (1C)], the total number of seats] in the Legislative Assembly of each State specified in the Second Schedule, to be filled by persons chosen by direct election from Assembly constituencies, and the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State, shall be as shown in that Schedule. 20. The scheme emerging from a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, is that there has to be reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of each State under Article 332 of the Constitution, in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the State as compared to the total population of the State. 20. The scheme emerging from a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, is that there has to be reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of each State under Article 332 of the Constitution, in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the State as compared to the total population of the State. There can be no doubt that as per the mandate of the aforesaid provision of the Constitution, seats have to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State, but the number of such seats would have to be determined in terms of the scheme that emerges from proper application of the other provisions of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Delimitation Act. In this context, the true purport of the expression “population” used in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, assumes great significance. The true purport of the said expression is found in the Explanation and the Proviso appended to Article 330 of the Constitution. The said Explanation and Proviso are relevant for both, Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. A proper reading of the same shows that the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of a State, shall bear as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the “population” of the Scheduled Tribes bears to the total population of the State. The crucial aspect in this regard is as to the reference point concerning population to be taken into consideration while determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 21. The Explanation and Proviso appended to Article 330 of the Constitution, which is applicable to Article 332 also, specifically lays down that the expression “population” means the population as ascertained in the 2001 census until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published. Thus, for the purpose of determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of a State, the relevant figures of population of the 2001 census are to be the basis. 22. This is also evident from Article 170 of the Constitution, which pertains to the composition of Legislative Assemblies. Thus, for the purpose of determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of a State, the relevant figures of population of the 2001 census are to be the basis. 22. This is also evident from Article 170 of the Constitution, which pertains to the composition of Legislative Assemblies. It provides that each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio of the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it, shall be the same throughout the State, so far as it is practicable. Here again, the Explanation and Proviso appended to Article 170(2) of the Constitution, specifying "population” means the population as ascertained in the 2001 census, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published. This applies even to readjustment of territorial constituencies as per Proviso to Article 170(3) of the Constitution. 23. The Constitution (Eighty Fourth Amendment) Act, 2002, substituted the figures “2026” in place of the figures “2000” and the aforesaid substitution was also made in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. The relevant portion of the statement of objects and reasons for making such substitution under the Constitution (Eighty Fourth Amendment) Act, 2002, reads as follows: STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 1. Proviso to articles 82 and 170 (3) of the Constitution provides that no fresh readjustment of constituencies can be undertaken until the figures of the first census taken after the year 200 are published. These provisos were inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 as a measure to boost family planning norms. Since the first census to be taken after the year 2000 has already begun, the constitutional embargo on undertaking fresh delimitation will lapse as soon as the figures of this census are published. 2. There have been consistent demands, both for and against undertaking the exercise of fresh delimitation. Keeping in view the progress of family planning programmes in different parts of the country, the Government, as part of the National Population Policy strategy, recently decided to extend the current freeze on undertaking fresh delimitation up to the year 2026 as a motivational measure to enable the State Government to pursue the agenda for population stabilisation.” 24. Keeping in view the progress of family planning programmes in different parts of the country, the Government, as part of the National Population Policy strategy, recently decided to extend the current freeze on undertaking fresh delimitation up to the year 2026 as a motivational measure to enable the State Government to pursue the agenda for population stabilisation.” 24. A perusal of the above-quoted portion shows that there were consistent demands both for and against undertaking a fresh exercise of delimitation and it was thought fit to extend the freeze of undertaking fresh delimitation up to the year 2026, as part of the National Population Policy strategy and as a motivational measure to enable the State Governments to pursue the agenda for population stabilization. Thus, the freeze on delimitation by substituting the figures "2026" in the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution, is based on specific objects and reasons as stated above. 25. Articles 327 to 329 of the Constitution, are found in Part XV of the Constitution pertaining to elections. Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution provide for power of the Parliament and the Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to the Legislatures. Article 329(a) specifically provides that validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 or 328 of the Constitution shall not be called in question in any Court. It is significant that Article 329 starts with the words "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”. 26. The law relating to the delimitation of constituencies was enacted in the form of the Delimitation Act, which provided for the constitution of a Delimitation Commission under Section 3 thereof. The said Commission consists of three members, one a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court, one who is Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner nominated by the Chief Election Commissioner and one State Election Commissioner of the concerned State. Section 4 specifies the duties of the Delimitation Commission and it specifically provides that the said Commission shall readjust the division of each State in territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the State Legislative Assembly on the basis of census figures ascertained in the year 2001. Section 7 of the Delimitation Act provides for the elaborate procedure to be followed by the Delimitation Commission and its powers. Section 7 of the Delimitation Act provides for the elaborate procedure to be followed by the Delimitation Commission and its powers. Section 8 of the said Act pertains to the readjustment of number of seats and here again, the exercise of readjustment is to be carried out on the basis of figures of the 2001 census. Section 9 specifically provides for delimitation of constituencies, wherein reference is made to the figures of the 2001 census. Section 10 provides for the manner in which the Delimitation Commission is to give wide publicity to its exercise of readjustment of number of seats and delimitation of constituencies under Sections 8 and 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 specifically provides that every order of the Delimitation Commission upon its publication in the Gazette of India shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. 27. A proper appreciation of the provisions of the Delimitation Act shows that the Delimitation Commission constituted under Section 3 of the said Act, undertakes a detailed exercise of readjustment of seats and delimitation of constituencies including the aspect of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly. The Delimitation Commission holds public sittings, inviting objections and upon considering the same passes orders concerning the aforesaid matters, including the question of reservation of seats for Schedule Tribes in Legislative Assemblies. 28. The aforesaid scheme under the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission & Ors (supra). The Supreme Court took into consideration Articles 80, 170, 327 to 332 of the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962. The provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, were similar to the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, with which this Court is concerned and, in that context, the Supreme Court held in the aforesaid Judgment as follows : “10. The legal effect of the orders is given in sub-sections (2) and (4) of' Section 10 of the Act. Under sub-section (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". The legal effect of the orders is given in sub-sections (2) and (4) of' Section 10 of the Act. Under sub-section (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". Under sub-section (4) (omitting the irrelevant portion) the readjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order shall apply in relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the case may be, held after the publication in the Gazette of India of that order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Delimitation of' Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1961. 11. It will be noted from the above that it was the intention of the, legislature that every order under Sections 8 and 9 after publication is to have the force of law and not to be made the subject matter of controversy in any court. In other words, Parliament by enacting Section 10(2) wanted to make it clear that orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 were to be treated as having the binding force of law and not mere administrative directions. This is further reinforced by subsection (4) of section 10 according to which the readjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of the People and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order (i.e. under Section 8 or Section 9) was to apply in relation to every election to the House held after the publication of the order in the Gazette of India and these provisions contained in the order were to supersede all provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1961. In effect, this means the complete effacement of all provisions of this nature which were in force before the passing of the orders under Section 8 and Section 9 and only such orders were to hold the field. In effect, this means the complete effacement of all provisions of this nature which were in force before the passing of the orders under Section 8 and Section 9 and only such orders were to hold the field. Therefore although the impugned notification was not a statute passed by Parliament, it was a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution. … … 19. An examination of Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act shows that the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. Section 8, which deals with the readjustment of the number of seats, shows that the Commission must proceed on the basis of the latest census figures and by order determine having regard to the provisions of Articles 81, 170, 330 and 332, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State. Similarly, it was the duty of the Commission under Section 9 to distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State to single member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census figures having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1). Sub-section, (2) of Section 9 shows that the work done under sub-section (1) was not to be final, but that the Commission (a) had to publish its proposals under sub-section (1) together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of an associate member, (b) to specify a date after which the proposals could be further considered by it, (c) to consider, all objections and suggestions which may have been received before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, to hold public sittings at such place or places as it thought fit. It is only then that the Commission could by one or more order, determine the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies as also of Assembly constituencies of each State. 20. It is only then that the Commission could by one or more order, determine the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies as also of Assembly constituencies of each State. 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 Section 8 and Section 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be re-agitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Section 8 and Section 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 Section 8 and Section 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.” 29. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court, in the context of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, dealt with a specific question as to whether the Government was justified in postponing the delimitation of territorial constituencies of the Legislative Assemblies until the relevant figures had been published after the first census taken after the year 2026. A specific contention was raised before the Supreme Court that without an exercise in delimitation immediately upon completion of census operation, the election would not reflect the true voice of democracy and that the popular view would be gagged, thereby showing that it would not find a proper representation. A specific contention was raised before the Supreme Court that without an exercise in delimitation immediately upon completion of census operation, the election would not reflect the true voice of democracy and that the popular view would be gagged, thereby showing that it would not find a proper representation. While dealing with the said contention and referring to the pari materia provisions in the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court repulsed the said argument and held that there is an express Constitutional bar to any challenge to the Delimitation law and that, therefore, such a challenge on behalf of the Appellant before the Court could not be entertained by any Court, including the Supreme Court. In this context, Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, is also relevant because it specifically provides that every order of the Delimitation Commission published in the Gazette of India shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. 30. This aspect was also considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. P. Scheduled Castes Welfare Association, Hyderabad & etc. vs. Union of India & Ors (supra). The Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to the above-quoted objects and reasons of the Constitution (Eighty Fourth Amendment) Act, whereby the figures "2026" were substituted for the figures "2000" and it was held that the readjustment of seats and delimitation of constituencies had to be done on the basis of the figures of the 2001 census and that there was no substance in the challenge raised on behalf of the Petitioners. It was also specifically held that the mere change in the definition of the expression "population” with reference to census figures of a particular year, would not have the effect of altering the basic structure of the Constitution. On this basis, the challenge raised by the Petitioners for declaring the Constitution (Eighty Fourth Amendment) Act as unconstitutional was rejected. This Court agrees with the findings rendered in the aforesaid Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 31. The Madras High Court in the case of M. Chandramohan vs. The Secretary & Ors. (supra), also took into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act and found that the claim of the Petitioners to tinker with the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, could not be permitted. 31. The Madras High Court in the case of M. Chandramohan vs. The Secretary & Ors. (supra), also took into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act and found that the claim of the Petitioners to tinker with the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, could not be permitted. After referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act, as also the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission & Ors (supra), it was held as follows : “16. The constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe will remain reserved till the next Delimitation exercise which is due to be taken up after the first census to be taken after the year 2026, as evident from the reply dated 07.09.2018 filed by the Election Commission. In view of the above provisions and delimitation done pursuant to the Delimitation Act, 2002, the reserved seat would remain as reserved seat till the next delimitation exercise.” 32. This Court agrees with the aforesaid finding of the Madras High Court. 33. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners placed much emphasis on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Poudyal vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) to contend that the laws providing for reservation were found in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution and that, therefore, the bar of challenge to the orders under the Delimitation Act under Article 329(a) of the Constitution would not be relevant. For this purpose, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied upon paragraph 119 of the aforesaid Judgment which reads as follows: “119 It is true that the right to vote is central to the right to participation in the democratic process. However, there is less consensus amongst theorists on the propriety of judicial activism in the voting area. In India, the Delimitation Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, are immune from the 'judicial test of their validity and the process of allotment of seats and constituencies not liable to be called in question in any court by virtue of Article 329(a) of the Constitution. In India, the Delimitation Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, are immune from the 'judicial test of their validity and the process of allotment of seats and constituencies not liable to be called in question in any court by virtue of Article 329(a) of the Constitution. But the laws providing reservations are made under the authority of other provisions of the Constitution such as those in Article 332 or clause (f) of Article 371-F which latter is a special provision for Sikkim." 34. In this context, the learned Advocate General is justified in relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dhanwanti Devi & Ors. (supra), which reiterates the position of law that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. A proper reading of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Poudyal vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) shows that the above-quoted observation has been made in the context of the specific issues that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in the said case. The majority judgment in the said case has framed the points for consideration, which clearly indicate the peculiar case of the State of Sikkim, when it amalgamated with the Union of India. In that context, the validity of Article 371 (f) of the Constitution was under consideration and the demands of the original residents of Sikkim i.e. Bhutias-Lepchas, were under consideration. This was in the backdrop of discussion concerning the Rule of one person one vote. While elaborating on the said aspects, the Supreme Court in the above-quoted paragraph 119 of the Judgment merely observed that Article 332 indeed provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in said Article and it also specifically referred to Article 371(f) of the Constitution, particularly for the State of Sikkim. The said judgment in no manner supports the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners. In fact, the said Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Poudyal vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), finds mention in the aforesaid subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In fact, the said Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Poudyal vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), finds mention in the aforesaid subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). After referring to the said Constitution Bench Judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that there is indeed an express Constitutional bar to any challenge being made to delimitation law and that such a challenge cannot be entertained by any Court, including the Supreme Court. 35. This position of law is reiterated in a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa & anr. vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh (supra), wherein it is specifically stated that statutory provisions dealing with delimitation and allotment of seats, cannot be questioned in any Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also recognized the said position of law in its judgement in the case of G. Prasada Rao Vs. Election Commission of India (supra). 36. Thus, it becomes clear that under the scheme envisaged as per the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the provisions of the Delimitation Act, the delimitation of constituencies, readjustment of seats and reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Legislative Assemblies was to be undertaken as per figures of the 2001 census. This exercise was indeed carried out by the Delimitation Commission and the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order was published in the Gazette of India in the year 2008. In the said delimitation order, for the State of Goa, one seat was reserved in the Legislative Assembly for Schedule Castes and no seat was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. This Order was published by the Delimitation Commission in the year 2008, after carrying out the elaborate exercise of organizing sittings, inviting objections and conducting hearings. It is significant that the Order issued by the Delimitation Commission for the State of Goa records that the population of Schedule Tribes in the State of Goa as per the 2001 census was only 566. This is an admitted position on record. 37. The Petitioners themselves have placed on record relevant portion of the Second Schedule to the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, as per Section 7 thereof. This is an admitted position on record. 37. The Petitioners themselves have placed on record relevant portion of the Second Schedule to the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, as per Section 7 thereof. It states the total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of various States, including Goa, with break-up of the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes categories. In the said Schedule also, it is specifically recorded that in the State of Goa, no seat is reserved for the Schedule Tribes. This is also an admitted position on record and it is also an admitted position that at no point in time was the Delimitation Order of the year 2008 challenged and the entry in the Schedule to the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, was also not challenged before any forum. 38. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has contended that the material on record shows that by the issuance of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order Amendment Act, 2002, three new communities were added to the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Goa. According to the Petitioners, this clearly resulted in an increase in the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa, even if the numbers of 2001 census were to be considered. It was claimed that as a consequence of addition of the three new communities as Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa, the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa had gone up to about 12% of the entire population. On this basis, it was submitted that a direction was warranted against the Respondents herein for considering the case for reservation of seats for Schedule Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa. 39. This Court finds that cogent material is not placed on record to support the claim that in pursuance of addition of three new communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Goa, the population of Scheduled Tribes had increased to 12% of the total population of the State. Even if the Respondents were called upon to verify the said claim of the Petitioners, the only forum available under the aforementioned scheme as per the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act, for raising such an issue, was the Delimitation Commission constituted under the provisions of the Delimitation Act. Even if the Respondents were called upon to verify the said claim of the Petitioners, the only forum available under the aforementioned scheme as per the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act, for raising such an issue, was the Delimitation Commission constituted under the provisions of the Delimitation Act. It is claimed on the basis of some documents by the Petitioners that there were indeed representations made to the Delimitation Commission after the year 2003 in respect of the said issue and even the State Government of Goa had sought reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes, in the wake of inclusion of the aforesaid communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Goa. But, evidently, none of this led to the Delimitation Commission holding in its Order published in the Gazette of India that seats ought to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Goa. A reference is already made to the Delimitation Order pertaining to the State of Goa issued in the year 2008, whereby only one seat was reserved for the Scheduled Castes category and no seat was reserved in the Legislative Assembly for the Scheduled Tribes category. As noted above, the said Order of the Delimitation Commission is law in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and under Article 329(a) of the Constitution and Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, such law, upon being published in Gazette of India has the force of law and cannot be called in question in any Court. It is also clear that the next exercise of delimitation is to be undertaken after the first census to be conducted after the year 2026. Thus, the contention of the Petitioners that the question of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly for the State of Goa ought to be considered by including the three new communities added in the list of Schedule Tribes, cannot be accepted. 40. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that in the present Petition, there is no challenge to the Order passed in the year 2008 by the Delimitation Commission, quite apart from the fact that it could not have been challenged in any Court. 40. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that in the present Petition, there is no challenge to the Order passed in the year 2008 by the Delimitation Commission, quite apart from the fact that it could not have been challenged in any Court. Although the learned ASG argued on the question of delay on the part of the Petitioners in raking up the issue, we are not considering the said aspect of the matter, for the simple reason that such an Order being law, cannot be challenged in a Court of law. It is also significant that the Petitioners have nowhere challenged the bar imposed by Article 329(a) of the Constitution and Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act and there is no contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners that the said provisions are unconstitutional. In the absence of any challenge to the said provisions, the same apply in full force. In fact, as noted above, in the case of Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that any such challenge cannot be entertained by any Court, including the Supreme Court itself. 41. Therefore, even if there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the Constitution does provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States, the same has to be implemented and the number of reserved seats is to be determined on the basis of the aforesaid scheme manifested under the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act. The reliefs claimed by the Petitioners cannot be granted in the face of the aforesaid scheme. 42. The sheet anchor of the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners is the Order of the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), wherein a direction was indeed given by the Supreme Court to the Election Commission to consider the case of Scheduled Tribes in the context of the election to be conducted for the State of UP for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes. A perusal of the said Order shows that it was passed on a concession on the part of the Election Commission to carry out the exercise, as was sought by the Petitioners before the Supreme Court. A perusal of the said Order shows that it was passed on a concession on the part of the Election Commission to carry out the exercise, as was sought by the Petitioners before the Supreme Court. On such a statement of concession made on behalf of the Election Commission, it is significant that the learned Attorney General submitted that he had nothing further to add. It is also significant that there is no discussion on the aforesaid scheme contemplated under the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act as regards determination of the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. There is only a reference to Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution in the context of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies. It is in this backdrop that the Supreme Court disposed of the said petition as follows: “8. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the Election Commission of India, to consider the case of the Scheduled Tribes, as indicated in the writ petition and to take appropriate steps for their representation in the lower Houses, both in Parliament, as well as in the State Assemblies in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners will be at liberty to supply necessary details of the figures indicated to the Election Commission of India and the Election Commission may itself also obtain figures from the Registrar General, as suggested by the learned Attorney General and, thereafter, proceed to take steps in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution for due representation of the Scheduled Tribes population.” 43. It is significant that even while giving such directions, the Supreme Court observed that the matter would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution for due representation of the Scheduled Tribe population. The reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies has to be undertaken in terms of the above-noted scheme under the Constitution, which mandates that seats would be reserved as per the order of the Delimitation Commission constituted under the Delimitation Act on the basis of figures of 2001 census and that the next such exercise would be undertaken after the first census to be conducted after the year 2026. We are of the opinion that the said Order passed by the Supreme Court cannot come to the aid of the Petitioners in the present Petition. 44. As noted above, insofar as reliance on the Order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Singh Kunwar & Ors. vs. Election Commission of India (supra), is concerned, suffice it to say, that the said Order records the mandate of the Constitution under Article 332(3) for providing reservation of seats for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies in proportion to their population. There cannot be any dispute with the same, but it has to be implemented in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act. We are of the opinion that if the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners is to be accepted, it would amount to a direction to the Respondents to legislate which cannot be granted. In this context, the learned ASG is justified in relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal vs. Satpal Saini (supra), where it is recorded that a mandamus cannot be issued by the High Court to amend provisions of law or to trench upon the sovereign legislative power. It is also laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Council for Indian School Certificate Examination Vs. Isha Mittal (supra) that the High Courts are under an obligation to decide matters in accordance with law and that the considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to law. The Supreme Court has also laid down in the case of Molar Mal Vs. Iron Works (P) Ltd. (supra), that when the Constitutional validity of a provision of law is not in challenge before the Court, it cannot be said that the law will not be given its logical effect, merely because it may cause some hardship. In this context, it is significant to note that after the direction was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), on a concessional statement made by the Election Commission, Ordinances were promulgated to carry out the exercise but the said Ordinances also lapsed. In this context, it is significant to note that after the direction was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Pratap & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), on a concessional statement made by the Election Commission, Ordinances were promulgated to carry out the exercise but the said Ordinances also lapsed. Thus, the aforesaid Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners do not take their case any further. 45. Upon appreciation of the said position of law, it becomes clear that the Respondent-Election Commission of India was justified in issuing communication dated 22.07.2021 to the Petitioner no.1. It is stated in the said communication that the delimitation of constituencies and reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes, cannot be changed till the next delimitation exercise is undertaken, which in normal circumstances is due to be taken up after the first census after the year 2026. The Respondent no.1 has specifically referred to Articles 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the said communication is based on the position of law as it obtains in terms of the said Articles of the Constitution, read with the provisions of the Delimitation Act and the aforementioned Judgments of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Petitioners are not justified in contending that relief can be granted to them because they are not seeking delimitation of constituencies but they are seeking implementation of reservation in accordance with the already existing delimitation and already existing census. We are of the opinion that the Petitioners are actually seeking a direction from this Court against the Respondents for carrying out an exercise, which under the aforesaid scheme of the Constitution has to wait till the next exercise of delimitation is undertaken in terms of the provisions of the Constitution and the Delimitation Act i.e. after the first census after the year 2026. None of the Respondents have disputed the fact that the Constitution does provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Legislative Assemblies of the States. None of the Respondents have disputed the fact that the Constitution does provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Legislative Assemblies of the States. But they have highlighted before this Court the aforesaid scheme under the Constitution as regards the manner in which such reservation is to be implemented and the position of law laid down in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission & Ors (supra), which is consistently followed till date. 46. In the light of the above, we find that no relief can be granted in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.