Order : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. These writ petitions involve a common question as to whether without there being any inclusion/exclusion of area in municipality, the process of delimitation of wards can take place, particularly when, no fresh census has taken place between the delineation earlier made and the elections held and ensuing elections, which are scheduled in October –December, 2025. 2. In one of the writ petitions (being SB CWP No.8040/2025 : Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.), this Court noticed the basic contention of the petitioners, who have challenged the very initiation of the delimitation exercise. It will not be out of place to reproduce the contentions noted during the record of proceedings dated 02.05.2025, which reads thus: 1. By way of present writ, the petitioners have challenged the very initiation of delimitation exercise while contending that none of the conditions as mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 does exist, for which the respondents can undertake delimitation exercise. 2. Mr. Bhurani, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the same wards were created for municipal election of 2019 and since then, neither any revenue village has been included in municipal area of Rajsamand nor has any fresh census taken place, so as to warrant exercise of delimitation. 3. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State prays for and is granted ten days’ time to respond to the question as canvassed by the petitioners. 3. On 28.05.2025 all these writ petitions were listed, but since it was practically the last day before the summer vacations and there was long list of other urgent matters, the arguments were heard on stay application(s) and learned counsel for the parties were requested to submit written arguments, while reserving the order on stay application(s). 4. Mr. R.S. Choudhary and Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners apprised the Court about the number of wards and number of persons in each wards including SC/ST population and highlighted that so far as the Municipal Board, Taranagar (District Churu) and Deogarh (District Rajsamand) are concerned, neither any revenue village has been included nor has any area been excluded from these Municipalities since 2019, when the municipal elections were held on the basis of census of 2011. 5. 5. They argued that since new census has not been conducted, as per the relevant provisions and guidelines issued by the State Government, the figures of census of 2011 alone are to be taken into account and therefore, exercise of delimitation of wards in these municipalities is impermissible, as per Section 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”) 6. Taking the Court through the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009, learned counsel submitted that none of the contingencies encapsulated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 has arisen, for which the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 can be invoked. 7. They argued that such being the position, the delimitation exercise or re-determination of wards cannot take place, and hence, the proposal mooted by the corresponding District Collectors or the election officers seeking to change the territorial boundaries of the wards and the very initiation of process of delimitation is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in almost identical fact situation, the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2023: PHHC :134750-DB) has elaborately dealt with the law and quashed the exercise of delimitation undertaken by the respondents therein, as the same was found to be contrary to Rule 4 of the DELIMITATION OF WARDS OF MUNICIPALITIES RULES , 1972 as applicable in the State of Punjab, which is analogous to Section 3 of the Act of 2009. 9. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment dated 06.11.2009 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Singh Meena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No.9972/2009) and other judgment passed in the case of Azizulla Khan & 12 Ors. Vs. State & Ors., reported in 1991(1) WLC p.133 in a bid to lend support to their arguments. 10. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection by contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioners are not maintainable, as there is a constitutional embargo upon the Court’s power as contained in Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection by contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioners are not maintainable, as there is a constitutional embargo upon the Court’s power as contained in Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. 11. He argued that not only Article 243ZG inserted by 73 rd Constitutional Amendment, but also Section 30 of the Act of 2009 restrain the Court from entertaining any challenge to the delimitation exercise. 12. While maintaining that the writ petitions are premature, as final notification is yet to be issued by the State Government, he contended with vehemence that none of the fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioners have been violated. 13. Learned Addl. Advocate General also submitted that the petitioners’ reliance upon Section 3 of the Act of 2009 in isolation is misplaced, as Section 3 of the Act of 2009 has to be read in conjunction with Section 6 of the Act of 2009. He argued that Section 6 provides for composition of municipalities and deal with number of territorial constituencies known as wards/seats. 14. The crux of his contentions has been that by virtue of Section 6 of the Act of 2009, the respondents can well undertake the delimitation exercise, in order to ensure that number of electors or voters in each wards is almost equal. He emphasized that on account of various factors such as migration of population from the inner city areas to the outer areas and expansion of the city so also because of death and birth of the residents, it becomes necessary for the State Government to undertake delimitation exercise, irrespective of the fact that the basis for election remains to be the census of 2011. 15. He went on to argue that notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 2009 can be reviewed and delimitation exercise can take place notwithstanding the fact that no new census has taken place and that sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 2009 empowers the State Government to re- determine or modify the wards or boundary/limits of the wards. 16. Learned Addl. Advocate General relied upon the following judgments : (i) State of Kerala Vs. Abdul Gafoor : 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1213 (ii) Dule Singh Vs. State of Raj. 16. Learned Addl. Advocate General relied upon the following judgments : (i) State of Kerala Vs. Abdul Gafoor : 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1213 (ii) Dule Singh Vs. State of Raj. : 2019 SCC OnLinwe Raj 3209 (iii) SB Civil Writ Petition No.14248/2019 : Jagdish Prasad Saini Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay applications. 18. Before adverting to other contentions, it would be apt rather essential to deal with preliminary objection raised by learned Addl. Advocate General that in the teeth of constitutional embargo given under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, the High Court is denuded of its powers even in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the matters relating to municipal elections, including the process of delimitation. 19. So far as such objection of Mr. Pawar is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that since final notification has not been issued by the State Government and the petitioners have approached this Court against the very initiation of the delimitation exercise, the so called inhibition enshrined under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, from exercising the plenary powers is not attracted, if the Court is prima-facie satisfied that the contention of the petitioners that the proposed exercise of delimitation is dehors the statutory provisions on the one hand and arbitrary on the other. 20. Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and in view of the fact that no final notification has so far been issued and the exercise of delimitation is in its nascent stage, this Court is of the view that neither the hands of the High Court are tied nor can the High Court be asked to refrain from interfering by citing the provision of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. 21. Apart from above, this Court finds substance in the line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) in relation to maintainability of the writ petition, which has been dealt with and dilated upon in great detail. 21. Apart from above, this Court finds substance in the line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) in relation to maintainability of the writ petition, which has been dealt with and dilated upon in great detail. Para Nos.6 to 14 of the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court which lucidly deal with this aspect and persuade this Court to prima-facie opine that the writ petition in the instant factual matrix is maintainable, need reproduction for ready reference: “14. The Full Bench decision in Prithivi Raj(supra) has its own persuasive value but in the facts and circumstance of this case, we respectfully borrow the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh(supra), Ashok Kumar(supra) and State of Goa Vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh (2021) 8 SCC 401 . In view of the above discussion, we hold that the present petitions are maintainable. 15. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the delimitation process on the ground of colourable exercise of power and arbitrariness by the authorities as the mandate of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1972 is completely throttled in the impugned delimitation exercise. Neither there is any alteration in the municipal limits nor there is any increase in the population. As such, the entire exercise is a nullity and suffers from incurable defect. The respondents have completely departed from the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1972 by creating tailor-made wards only suitable to a few to ensure their success in elections, which has resulted in disturbing the level playing field to give undue advantage to a select few. As such, the entire exercise is a nullity and suffers from incurable defect. The respondents have completely departed from the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1972 by creating tailor-made wards only suitable to a few to ensure their success in elections, which has resulted in disturbing the level playing field to give undue advantage to a select few. The petitioners in CWP No.7548 of 2023 have taken a specific stand by referring to ward- wise statement of Municipal Council-Dera Baba Nanak published in pursuance to wardbandi done vide notification dated 31.03.2021 and the ward-wise statement of draft notification dated 22.12.2022 on page 7 & 11 of the writ petition, which are reproduced as under:- Ward wise statement MC Dera Baba Nanak vide Notification 31.03.2021 Ward No. TP SC BC Gen Reservation 1 794 77 446 271 R/W 2 802 47 420 335 General 3 928 265 213 450 R/W 4 815 272 163 380 R/SC/W 5 783 72 149 562 R/W 6 818 229 229 360 General 7 893 221 543 129 R/BC 8 824 129 333 362 General 9 943 132 406 405 R/W 10 917 453 171 293 R/SC 11 896 57 413 426 R/W 12 914 27 329 558 General 13 870 13 380 477 General Total 11197 1994 4195 5008 Ward wise statement MC Dera Baba Nanak – Draft Notification 22.12.2022 Ward No. TP SC BC Gen Reservation 1 812 30 456 326 R/W 2 781 93 339 349 3 859 200 278 381 R/W 4 940 289 350 301 R/SC 5 928 265 213 450 R/W 6 824 287 417 120 7 800 129 296 375 R/W 8 930 132 406 392 9 864 327 176 361 R/SC/W 10 783 72 149 562 11 888 65 479 344 R/BC 12 901 100 266 535 13 887 5 370 512 R/W Taotal 11197 1994 4195 5008 15.1 A comparison of both the ward wise statements of Municipal Council- Dera Baba Nanak makes it abundantly clear that there is no increase in the population rather the total population in both the statements is mentioned as 11197. Not only this, figures of category wise population i.e. SC, BC and General are also identical and there is not even a single digit variation. Not only this, figures of category wise population i.e. SC, BC and General are also identical and there is not even a single digit variation. This contention was not even controverted in the reply by respondents No.1 and 2 rather a short reply was filed by respondents No.1, 3 & 4 to mislead this Court and projected a ground that impugned delimitation process was necessitated on account of addition of new voters on attaining the age of 18 years and deletion of dead voters. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have intentionally avoided filing of detailed parawise reply on merits. The above approach of the respondents needs to be deprecated. On this ground alone, the subsequent impugned delimitation exercise is liable to be set aside, which was finalized vide notification dated 27.01.2023. The petitioners had specifically pleaded in paragraph 3 that they had moved an RTI application (Annexure P-7) seeking the copy of the notification of the fresh impugned delimitation but the same has not been provided to the petitioners. This fact was not denied by the respondents in their reply and no objection was raised whatsoever on the ground that specific challenge to the notification dated 27.01.2023 finalizing the subsequent delimitation was not made. The entire stand of the petitioners in the writ petition remains uncontroverted as the respondents No.1 to 5 have not filed detailed parawise reply by specifically denying the stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petition. Only a short reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Even no attempt was made to controvert the stand of the petitioners during arguments. 16. Let us examine the statutory provisions of the Rules of 1972. "3. Constitution of Board :- (1) For the purposes of carrying out the provisions of these rules, the Government shall constitute a Delimitation Board for each Municipality consisting of the following members namely:- (i) The Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat is situated or any other officer nominated by him in this behalf; (i) (a) Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly representing the concerned Municipality. (ii) Sub-Divisional Officer; (iii) The Deputy Director, Local Government of the Region concerned; (iv) The President or Administrator of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat concerned; and (v) Executive Officer of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat concerned. (ii) Sub-Divisional Officer; (iii) The Deputy Director, Local Government of the Region concerned; (iv) The President or Administrator of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat concerned; and (v) Executive Officer of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat concerned. (vi) Two members nominated by the Government by notification. (2) The Board shall associate with itself for the purpose of assisting it in its day to day functioning not more than five members of the Municipality having due regard to the representation of various political parties and groups in the composition of the Municipality. The names of associate members shall be sponsored to the Director by the Executive Officer of the concerned Municipality in consultation with the concerned Deputy Commissioner. This provision shall not, however, apply in the case of a dissolved Municipality. 4. Functions of the Board :- It shall be the duty of the Board- (i) to divide the Municipality into such number of wards as may be necessary, having regard to the number of elected members prescribed by the State Government, for the Municipality, and the number of seats reserved for members of the Scheduled Cases, Backward Classes and women. (ii) to re-adjust the wards as and when the limits of the Municipality are altered or there is increase in population of the Municipality or there is abnormal variation in population or voting figures of some of the wards of the Municipality, which requires, such re-adjustment. 5. Procedure and Powers of the Board :- (1) None of the associate members shall have a right to vote or to sign any decision of the Board. (2) The meetings of the Board shall be convened by the Director, after giving notice of at least three days of the date, time and place of the meeting to all of its members. (3) The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the Board shall be four. (4) All questions which come before any meeting of the Board shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the member present and voting. The Chairman of the meeting, in case of an equality of votes, shall have a second or casting vote. (4) All questions which come before any meeting of the Board shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the member present and voting. The Chairman of the meeting, in case of an equality of votes, shall have a second or casting vote. (5) The Board shall have power to act notwithstanding the temporary absence of a member, or an associate member, or of the existence of a vacancy in the Board, and no act or proceeding of the Board shall be invalid or called in question on the ground merely of temporary absence of a member or associate m embers, or of the existence of such a vacancy. (6) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall be Chairman of the Board. In his absence, the members present shall elect one who shall preside over the meeting as Chairman. 6. Principles for Delimitation of Wards of Municipality :- The following principles shall be observed by the Board in the delimitation of wards of a Municipality, namely: - (a) All wards shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them due regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, if any, facilities of communication and public convenience; (b) Each Municipality shall be divided into wards in such manner that the population of each ward, as far as practicable, is the same throughout the Municipality, with a variation upto ten per cent, above or below the average population figures; (c) Wards in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes, shall be located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population of the Municipality is the largest and such seats shall be allocated by rotation to different wards in the Municipality. (d) Seat numbers reserved for women (including number of seats reserved for women, if any, belonging to Scheduled Castes) by Government, shall be kept reserved for women and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the Municipality; and (e) One seat reserved for Backward Classes by Government, shall be kept reserved for Backward Classes which shall be located where their population in the Municipality is the largest and such seat shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the Municipality. (f) In every Municipality, the Delimitation Board, while drafting the scheme for Delimitation of Wards, shall allot number to all wards having due regard to the principle of constitution. Provided that principle of rotation shall not be applicable where delimitation of wards of a Municipality has been done under the provisions of clause (ii) of Rule of the rules. Explanation - In this rule, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained locally through the staff deputed by the Director, by going from door to door in the Municipality. 7. Scheme for delimitation of wards to be sent to State Government:- The Board shall, as soon as maybe after it has prepared the scheme for the delimitation of wards of the Municipality, send the same to the State Government for consideration. 8. Publication of scheme for delimitation of wards:- The State Government shall: - (a) publish in the official gazette the scheme for the delimitation of wards received by it under Rule 7 for eliciting objections or suggestions from the affected persons of the Municipality; (b) specify a date on or after which the scheme alongwith objections and suggestions, if any, will be considered by it; (c) consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received by it before the date so specified; and (d) thereafter, by order determine the delimitation of wards of the Municipality.” 22. Contention of Mr. Panwar that Section 6 of the Act of 2009 clothes the State Government with a power to change or alter the composition of a municipality regardless of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Act of 2009, in the prima- facie opinion of this Court requires greater deliberation. A careful reading of Section 6 of the Act of 2009, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof, leaves no room for ambiguity that it is only upon completion of each census, the number of seats can be re-determined by the State Government by notification in the official gazette. 23. It will not be out of context to reproduce sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 2009 hereunder :- 6. 23. It will not be out of context to reproduce sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 2009 hereunder :- 6. Composition of Municipality:- (1) … … … (a) … … … (b) … … … (2) Upon the completion of each census after the establishment of the Municipality, the number of seats shall be re-determined by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette on the basis of the population of the municipal area as ascertained at the latest census: Provided that the determination of seats as aforesaid shall not affect the existing composition of the Municipality until the expiry of its term. (3) … … … 24. This Court has its serious doubts about the legality of impugned exercise, because if the number of wards so also number of seats reserved for women and members of schedule caste and schedule tribe can be re-determined only upon completion of fresh census, then how can the geographical boundaries of the wards be altered or number of wards be increased or decreased, when no change envisaged under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 has taken place, more particularly when Sections 3 and 6(2) are dependent upon the preceding census and not upon the number of present voters. 25. Reliance upon judgment of this Court given in the case of Dule Singh (supra) by Mr. Panwar at the first flush gives an impression that stand of the State is correct, but on a careful scrutiny and perusal of the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 2009 in juxtaposition with the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, this Court finds a subtle difference between these provisions. While Sections 3 and 6 of the Act of 2009 make the delimitation exercise dependent upon the population of census whereas Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 make no reference of census. 26. True it is, that Section 115 of the Act of 1994 makes reference of the figures of each census but the same is confined to creation of number of seats of Pachayati Raj Institutions. And the question as to what extent section 115 of the Act of 1994 is relevant for the purpose of issue at hands is required to be examined at greater detail. 27. And the question as to what extent section 115 of the Act of 1994 is relevant for the purpose of issue at hands is required to be examined at greater detail. 27. The facts and law involved before the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) are almost identical to the extant facts involved and para Nos. 22 to 26 succinctly answer the questions involved in the present writ petitions. 28. It is to be noted that in concluding para No.(ii) of para-28 of the judgment aforesaid, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the exercise of delimitation for the very reasons, which are the basic fulcrum or edifice for assailing the subject delimitation exercise. 29. In view of above, the corresponding stay applications in the captioned writ petitions are allowed and the respondent – State is restrained from proceeding in furtherance of the proposal made/sent by the District Collector or the corresponding municipalities changing the territorial precincts and number of voters until final disposal of the writ petition. 30. Having regard to the nature of controversy, the Registry is directed to list all these writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage on 21.07.2025. The matters shall be taken at 02.00 pm. (DINESH MEHTA),J ArunV/-