Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 10 September, 2015
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2015
Date of Reserving the Order
Date of Pronouncing the Order
01.09.2015
10.09.2015
Coram
THE HON'BLE Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.4475 of 2008
Bar Association, Pudukottai
(Regd.No.4 of1949)
rep. By its Secretary
Mr.G.Ramalingam. ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The Chief Electoral Officer
Secretary to Government
Public (Elections) Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Delimitation Commission of India
rep. By its Secretary
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001.
3.Union of India
rep. By its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Law & Justice
(Legislative Department )
New Delhi 110 001.
4.The Election Commission of India
rep. By its Secretary
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001.
5.The State Election Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certitorified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the impugned Notification dated 5.4.2007 published by the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly in the Tamil Nadu Govt Gazette and also the Tamilnadu Govt Gazette Extraordinary dated 13.8.2007 consisting the final notification issued by the 2nd respondent and published by the 1st and 2nd respondent jointly and quash the list of delimited parliamentary constituencies and their extent as provided in Table B of the Notification in so far as it relates to the done away or abolition of the Parliamentary Constituency of Pudukottai (Constituency No.30) as it stood in the proposal Notification dated 5.4.2007 and direct the second respondent to restore the said Constituency No.30 Pudukottai as one of the constituencies in Table-B under the head Parliamentary Constituencies and their extent by doing necessary alterations or delimitagtions of assembly segments so as to retain the Pudukottai parliamentary Constituency from the 1st delimitation based on the 1951 census and also from the First Lok Sabha Elections of the country conducted in the year 1952.
For petitioner .. Mr.N.R.Chandran, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents .. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Sr.Counsel/
Addl.Solicitor General of India
for G.R.Associates R1 to R4
O R D E R
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
This Writ Petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the Bar Association, Pudukottai Town & District, seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarifiled mandamus to quash the Notification dated 13.08.2007, issued jointly by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Secretary to Government, Public (Elections) Department, first respondent and the Secretary, Delimitation Commission of India, second respondent, in so far it relates to the abolition of the Parliamentary Constituency of Pudukottai, as it stood in the draft Notification and to direct the Delimitation Commission of India, the second respondent to restore the said Constituency, as one of the Parliamentary Constituencies.
2.It is the say of the petitioner that the major extent of present Revenue District of Pudukottai was an independent Princely State and merged with the Union of India during 1948 and after India became a republic, the first Parliamentary Election was conducted during 1952 and Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency was constituted as a separate Constituency, eventhough major part of it was part of Tiruchirappalli Revenue district. It is submitted that in the year 1974, Pudukottai, Alangudi, Thirumayam and Kulathur Taluks of Tiruchirappalli District and Aranthangi Taluk of Thanjavur District were carved out and the newly created Pudukottai District was formed consisting of five Revenue Taluks viz. Pudukottai, Aranthangi, Alangudi, Thirumayam and Kulathur.
3.The Delimitation Commission was constituted during 1973, which completed its task in October 1975 and Pudukottai Constituency was constituted as a separate Parliamentary Constituency with six Assemblies segments viz. Pudukottai, Kulathur, Alangudi, Aranthangi, Pattukottai and Peravurani. It is submitted that out of the five Assembly segments, Thirumayam was made as part of Sivagangai Parliamentary Constituency and the remaining Assembly segments of Pudukottai Revenue District and two Assembly segments viz. Pattukottai and Peravurani of Thanjavur Revenue District became part of Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency. It is stated that based on the said delimitation, general elections for the Parliamentary were held for Pudukottai Constituency during the year 1977, 1980, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2004.
4.It is further submitted that Delimitation Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') was enacted and the Commission was entrusted to do the delimitation process of Lok Sabha Constituencies of the Parliament and Assembly Constituencies of each State based on the number of Lok Sabha as well as the respective Assemblies as fixed under 1971 census. Accordingly, after completion of the process of delimitation, the Commission prepared a draft proposal under section 9 (2) of the Act and published the same in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 05.04.2007. By virtue of the said Notification, objections or suggestions with regard to the proposal could be submitted to the Secretary, Delimitation Commission, New Delhi on or before 18.04.2007.
5.It is submitted that separate proposal published in the said Notification, Pudukottai Revenue district which had originally five Assembly Constituencies was enhanced by adding one more Assembly Constituency namely Gandaravakottai. With regard to the proposed Parliamentary Constituency, the Notification included three Assembly segments of Thanjavur Revenue District viz. Orathanadu, Pattukottai and Peravurani and three Assembly segments of Pudukottai Revenue District viz. Gandarvakottai, kulathur and Pudukottai. As a result of this adjustment, three Assembly segments viz. Thirumayam, Alangudi and Aranthangi were made part of Sivagangai Parliamentary Constituency along with existing three Assembly segments viz. Karaikudi, Thirupathur and Sivagangai. It is submitted that representations by way of objections were submitted by the public as well as political parties, regarding the proposal to have the Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency with three Assembly segments from Thanjavur Revenue District and three Assembly segments from Pudukottai Revenue District and requested for a compact Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency consisting of six Assembly segments belonging to Pudukottai Revenue district. Thus, the representation was focused on removal of Assembly Constituencies which were located in the Thanjavur Revenue District.
6.It is further submitted that public hearing was conducted at Tiruchirappalli during April, 2007, in which objections were reiterated by the public as well as by the political parties, the petitioner would state that they were confident that their representations would be considered and the delimitation would be done so as to have a compact Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency consisting of six Assembly segments belonging to Pudukottai Revenue District. The petitioner would state that when the impugned Notification dated 13.08.2007 was published, the petitioner found that a new Constituency by name Mayiladuthurai was formed, which did not find place in the original proposal. As a consequence of which, the six Assembly segments of Pudukottai Revenue District were re-distributed into four Parliamentary Constituencies. This Notification is put to challenge in this Writ Petition.
7.The respondents 2 & 4 in their counter affidavit, have raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition in view of the specific bar under Article 329 (a) of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, provides that upon publication in the Gazette of India order made section 8 or section 9 of the Act shall have the force in law and shall not be called in question in any Court. It is submitted that the final order of the Delimitation Commission in respect of delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies for the State of Tamil Nadu has been issued under section 9(2) of the Act and published in the Gazette of India on 13.08.2007 and upon such publication, the said order has attained the force of law and cannot be called in question. It is further submitted that Presidential Order under Article 82 and 170 (3) of the Constitution of India has been issued and published on 19.02.2008 and has come into force in the State of Tamil Nadu from the date of notification and that the issue of Notification dated 23.05.2008, by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, the Delimitation Commission has seized to exist with effect from 1.6.2008. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MEGHRAJ KOTHARI v. DELIMITATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS [AIR 1967 (SC) 669], has been relied upon.
8.Further, it is submitted that the petitioner, a Bar Association is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file a Writ Petition inasmuch as the petitioner is not a voter and even voters cannot claim any right to vote in a particular Constituency and in such scenario, no person can be stated to be legally aggrieved against the delimitation of Constituencies.
9.On facts, it is submitted that the Delimitation Commission published a draft proposal on 05.04.2007 for Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies and public hearings were held at Coimbatore on 07.05.2007, at Madurai on 19.05.2007, at Tiruchirappalli on 20th and 21st May 2007 and at Chennai on 22.03.2008. It is further submitted that in the public hearing held at Tiruchirappalli, large number of people raised objections for inclusion of Mayiladuthurai Assembly Constituency in Chidambaram Parliamentary Constituency, in which three Assembly segments of Cuddalore District viz. Bhuvanagiri, Chidambaram and Kattumannar Koil and three Assembly segments from Nagapattinam District viz. Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai and Poombukar were included. Further, in the said hearing there was a demand to take into consideration the Kollidam river as natural barrier and not to combine the Constituencies north of Kollidam and south of Kollidam. Instead, there was a demand of three Parliamentary Constituencies comprised of 18 Assembly Constituencies South of Kollidam in the Districts of Nagapattiam, Tiruvarur and Tanjavur. Further, public demanded that all segments in the Cauvery Delta may be formed as one Parliamentary Constituency with the name called Cauvery Delta Farmers Parliamentary Constituency.
10.It is further submitted that earlier Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency had two Assembly Constituencies from Tanjavur District and with the formation of three Parliamentary Constituencies out of 18 Assembly Constituencies in the Districts of Nagapattinam, Tanjavur and Tiruvarur (earlier undivided Tanjavur District), there was no surplus Assembly Constituencies to be allocated to the Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency. Further, it is submitted that in southern Districts of Tamil Nadu viz. Sivaganga, Theni, Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi, Tirunelvei and Kanyakumar, there was a reduction of six Assembly segments due to other ares proportionality having more increase in public. Therefore, it is submitted that some Assembly segments from the nearby districts had to be added to the Parliamentary Constituencies in the southern Districts.
11.It is further submitted that out of the six Assembly Constituencies of Pudukottai District, three had to be transferred to the southern District of Sivaganga and Ramanathapuram, which were short of Assembly Constituencies for their respective Parliamentary Constituencies. One of the Assembly Constituencies of Pudukottai District was transferred to the neighbouring Karur District and the remaining two were added to the Parliamentary Constituency of Tiruchirappalli. Further, it is submitted that in the process of re-organisation, which is inevitable in any delimitation process, the Assembly segments of one District was included in the neighbouring Parliamentary Constituency due to geographical contiguity. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no rule that every Revenue District should have a Parliamentary Constituency named after it. Therefore, the respondents seeks to justify that the action in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
12.Further, it is submitted that the Act does not provide to re-invite suggestions/objections from the public on the changes pleaded before the Commission during public hearing and further invite suggestions/objections on each change is also not practically feasible as the Commission was to function within a time bound frame work and the process inviting suggestions/objections on each change may go to infinity. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent is that all the relevant factors and the totality of the situation were taken into consideration and the delimitation process was completed and none of the rights of the voters is affected.
13.Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, submitted that the first respondent had failed and neglected to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 and the Pudukottai Revenue District has been dismantled and all the six Assembly Constituencies had been allotted to various other Parliamentary Constituencies, thus depriving Pudukkottai to have a Parliamentary Constituency. Further, it is submitted that eventhough the name of Pudukottai Constituency was found in the draft notification before deleting the same, no notice or opportunity of being heard was afforded to person interested as required under law. Further, it is submitted that the deletion of the Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituencies was to help certain individuals and that there has been "Gerrymandering" and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., vs. Devilal reported in [AIR 1986 SC 434] was referred to wherein the term 'Gerrymandering' was explained.
14.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the scope of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution has been considered in various decisions and it has been held that the prohibition cannot be considered absolute and the High Court cannot be prevented from exercising its jurisdiction when there is a violation of provisions of law. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.VENKATACHALAM v. A.SWAMIKANNNU [AIR (1999) SC 1723]. Further, it is submitted that judicial review would be possible in certain cases, despite the prohibition provided in the Constitution and in this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1995 SC 1125]. With the above submissions, the learned Senior counsel sought for quashing the notification.
15.Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for respondents 2 & 4 submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the bar under Article 329 (a) of the Constitution of India and Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MEGHRAJ KOTHARI (supra). Further, it is submitted that public hearings were held at Coimbature, Madurai, Tiruchirappalli and Chennai and in the public hearing conducted in Tiruchirappalli, various demands and objections were raised more specifically on not including Mayiladuthurai Assembly Constituency. Further, the averments set out in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 & 4 were reiterated to justify the action of the Delimitation Commission. It is further submitted that taking into consideration of the objections and demands made during public hearings and the factor of geographical contiguity, the Constituency had to be removed and certain Assembly segments were to be merged with the other Constituencies. Further, it is submitted that pursuant to the impugned delimitation, two Parliamentary elections have been conducted. The learned Senior counsel produced the 'Original Files' to substantiate the factual averments made in the counter affidavit.
16.It is further submitted that the question as to whether judicial review is permissible in such circumstances, in the light of the decision in the case of L.CHANDRAKUMAR (supra), was considered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT v. SUNNY JOSEPH & ORS [ CDJ 2005 Ker HC 700] and the Division Bench held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained under Article 329 (a) of the Constitution.
17.We have heard Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Solicitor General of India, for respondents 2 & 4 and carefully perused the materials placed on record.
18.Two issues fall for consideration in this Writ Petition. Firstly, with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and secondly as to whether the procedure contemplated under the Delimitation Act, 2002 was followed and opportunity was granted to place the objections.
19.Before we venture to consider these two issues, it is relevant to point out that the petitioner is a Bar Association, said to be a registered body consisting of members who are Advocates practising in Pudukottai District. Thus, the petitioner Association is not a voter and hence the petitioner would not have locus standi to challenge the impugned notification, as it cannot be construed as an aggrieved person. Therefore, on this short ground, the relief sought for is liable to be rejected. Further more, the right to vote is a statutory right and not a fundamental right and in such circumstances, there can be no vested right for a voter to claim that he has a right to exercise his franchise in a particular Constituency. This would be another ground to reject the relief sought for. Nevertheless, since we elaborately heard the learned counsels on all issues, we proceed to consider the two issues, which have been framed for consideration.
20.In MEGHRAJ KOTHARI (supra), the Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was challenging an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Japalpur, summarily dismissing the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the notification issued in pursuance to section 10(1) of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in respect of the delimitation of certain Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said Writ Petition was rejected by the High Court on the ground that under Article 329 of the Constitution of India, the said Notification could not be questioned in any Court. The correctness of the said decision was the subject matter of Appeal.
21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed that the objections to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified and once orders passed by the Commission 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. Further, it was pointed out that there seems to be very good reason behind such a provision as if such orders made under the Delimitation Act are not to be treated as final, the effect would be that if any voter if he wished to waive, could hold up the election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the Constituencies from Court to Court. Referring to section 10(2) of the 1962 Act, it was held that the said provision clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under sections 8 & 9 published under section 10(1) of the 1962 Act were to be treated as law, it was not to be questioned in any Court. The aforementioned decision has held field and was consistently followed by all the Courts including this Court.
22.The endeavour of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to state that there cannot be any absolute bar for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is by placing reliance on the power of judicial review as explained in the case of L.CHANDRAKUMAR (supra). In fact this issue was considered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of SUNNY JOSEPH (supra) and it was pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in the case of L.CHANDRAKUMAR, after referring to the other decisions held that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the action under Article 226 before the High Courts and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure and therefore ordinarily the power of the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded and therefore the Constitutional Bench noticed that in the extraordinary circumstances, for example for purity of election and other related matters judicial review cannot be considered to be part of basic structure and the same can be ousted by law.
23.Further, it was pointed out that though judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Constitution could exclude judicial review in certain situations and one among them being Article 329 (a) of the Constitution which have excluded the scope of judicial review with a laudable objective pointing out that the judicial review in certain situations may not be regarded as an indispensable measure to determine the legality or propriety of actions and the difference in the phraseology used in Article 329(a) and (b) may give some room for challenging the orders passed under Article 329 (b) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on certain limited grounds, but not the orders relating to delimitation of constituencies which fall under Article 329(a). Further, it was pointed out that the decision in the case of MEGHRAJ KOTHARI (supra), is an authority for the proposition that orders passed under sections 8, 9 & 10 (2) of the Delimitation Act, have to be treated as law under Article 329 (a) of the Constitution and therefore cannot be called in question in any Court.
24.In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided against the petitioner.
25.The second issue is as to whether the procedure contemplated under the Act was followed and whether there was opportunity granted to put forward the objections. In this regard, we have perused the relevant files circulated by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents and from which we find that public hearing was conducted in Tiruchirappalli and suggestions and objections were invited and several persons have participated and the names of those persons who had participated during the hearing has also been recorded by the Delimitation Commission. Hence, it is not a case where there was no opportunity afforded to put forth the suggestions/objections.
26.The submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that in the draft notification, the name of Pudukottai Constituency was found, but, when the impugned notification was issued, the Constituency was dismantled and all six Assembly Constituencies were allotted to various other Parliamentary Constituencies, thus, depriving Pudukottai from being a Parliamentary Constituency. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 & 4, explains the matters which were considered during the public sitting, from which it is seen that in the public sitting held at Tiruchirappalli, large number of people raised objections for inclusion of Myliaduthurai Assembly Constituency in Chidambaram Parliamentary Constituency and there was a demand to take into consideration the Kollidam river as natural barrier and not to combine the Constituencies of North Kollidam and South Kollidam. Further, in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu viz. Sivagangai, Theni, Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari, there was reduction of six Assembly segments due to other areas proportionately having more increase in population and therefore, re-arrangement had to be done and this exercise has been carried out by the Delimitation Commission as a consequence of which the Assembly Constituency of Pudukottai was transferred to neighbouring Karur District and the remaining two Assembly Constituencies were added to the Parliamentary Constituency of Tiruchirappalli. Therefore, the decision has been taken after public sitting in which objections and suggestions were made. The Delimitation Act, 2002, does not provide for a further opportunity on the changes which the Delimitation Commission has deliberated during the public sitting.
27.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 4, if such opportunity has to be read into Statute, there can be no finality to the delimitation process. In fact in the absence of any such provision, the petitioner cannot seek to read into the statutory provision, which has not been explicitly provided for. In such circumstances, we are fully satisfied that the procedure under the Delimitation Act, 2002, has been followed and the final notification has been issued after considering the objections/suggestions in the public sitting held at Tiruchirappalli, where the views of the participants were recorded. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is also decided against the petitioner.
28. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner raised yet another contention stating that the deletion of the Pudukottai Constituency was to help certain individuals and that there has been gerrymandering. Referring to the decision of the Devilal (supra), it has been submitted that the deletion of Pudukottai Parliamentary Constituency was made to give unfair advantage to some individuals or political party, which may have interest in constituencies like Mayiladuthurai, Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram and Trichirapalli.
29. In the case of Devilal (supra), the question which arose for consideration is as to the powers of the Madhya Pradesh State Government under Section 106 of the M.P.Panchayats Act, 1962, to modify or alter the constituencies of a block once delimited by a notification issued thereunder after the process of election of the members to the Janapada Panchayat had started particularly without affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection. Considering the factual matrix therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the combined reading of the provisions of the M.P.Panchayats Act makes it evident that the actual control over the Gram Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada Panchayat for the block and it would also appear that the result of the elections of Janapada Panchayat would depend upon the nature of the electoral roll prepared for each constituency in a block. It was further held that the State Government (Madhya Pradesh) were to issue a notification under Section 106(1) of the M.P., Act for redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the process of election has started, it would necessarily change the whole pattern of voting in the election of members to the Janapada Panchayat and on these facts it was found to be a typical case of gerrymandering, (a American expression, meaning to arrange election districts so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a redistribution act or to manipulate constituencies generally).
30. It has to be noted that in the said decision, the question which arose for consideration under the relevant State enactment is, as to whether the impugned action of re-distribution of constituencies in a block was made after the process of election had started and on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such redistribution of constituencies in a block after the process of election had started was made so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded a factual finding that the whole exercise was malafide and intended and meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and therefore, such redistribution of constituencies was struck down.
31. Firstly it has to be pointed out that there is no specific plea of malafide raised in this Writ Petition and the averment is to the effect that the deletion of Pudukottai parliamentary Constituency has been done by the Delimitation Commission of India to protect the interest of some individuals or political party which may have interest in constituencies like Mayiladuthurai, Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram and Tiruchirappalli. The plea raised is absolutely vague and there is no material placed before the Court by the petitioner to substantiate their plea that the deletion of the constituency was to protect the interest of the some individuals or political party without name such persons or entities. Hence the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devilal (supra), does not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner.
32. Admittedly, Delimitation Commission is vested with the power to rearrange the Constituencies and the exercise of such power must be assumed that it was for good reasons. The reasons assigned by the Commission for rearranging the constituencies after the public hearings does not smack of any arbitrariness for this Court to interfere in the matter nor would this Court interfere in the light of the Constitutional bar. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that the impugned action is a case of gerrymandering has not been substantiated and hence such plea is liable to be rejected.
33.In the result, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference and the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(S.K.K.,CJ.) (T.S.S., J.) 10.09.2015
rpa/pbn
Index :Yes/No
To
1 The Chief Electoral Officer
Secretary to Government
Public (Elections) Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Delimitation Commission of India
rep. By its Secretary
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001.
3.Union of India
rep. By its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Law & Justice
(Legislative Department )
New Delhi 110 001.
4.The Election Commission of India
rep. By its Secretary
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001.
5.The State Election Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
Chennai.
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice and
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rpa/pbn
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.4475 of 2008
10.09.2015