The delimitation exercise for gram panchayats and panchayat samitis must be completed in one procedure, spanning between the initial notice and the final notification, and cannot be an ever-continuing exercise.

ORDER :

1. The issue which the petitioner seeks to adjudicate is no longer res-integra in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17993/2019] decided on 13.12.2019, relevant portion whereof reads as under:

“53. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar.

54. In the changed circumstances, while the original challenge was only to the final notification dated 15-16.11.2019, the Court, on submissions and affidavit having been filed on its query, has to now adjudicate upon the notifications post 15-16.11.2019.

55. This Court takes note of the fact that the delimitation exercise was initiated vide notification dated 12.06.2019, while exercising the powers under Sections 9, 10 and 101 of the Act of 1994.

56. This Court further takes note of the fact that the exercise was having a time schedule, which included raising of proposals by the District Collectors, inviting of objections, hearing upon the objections and the recommendations to be made by the District Collectors from 15.06.2019 to 02.09.2019. Thereafter, the recommendations alongwith all the representations were placed before a Sub Committee comprising of Six Ministers constituted by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 18.09.2019, whereafter the Sub Committee in its deliberations has considered about 5,000 proposals, and out of which about 1500 proposals were accepted.

57. This Court has already noted above the issues raised by various counsels for the petitioners, but broadly, the issues can be classified in two categories; firstly, the grievances arising out of the delimitation exercise prior to 15-16.11.2019 and the grievances arising out of delimitation exercise continuing after 15-16.11.2019 upto 01-02/12/2019.

58. The individual lawyers explained the territorial, geographical, population, distance, logic, practicability and other issues involved in the delimitation upto date of 15-16/11/2019, which does not require any consideration on merits as the iron curtain with the strength of Article 243-O of the Constitution and Sections 101 and 117 of the Act of 1994 has been drawn on 15/16.11.2019.

59. The issues pertaining to the factual matrix of the guidelines and the representations /recommendations/consideration made by the Sub Committee are of factual matrix, and by virtue of Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 101 of the Act of 1994, there is a bar in the interference by this Court, after the result of the delimitation was notified.

Admittedly, in all the present writ petitions under adjudication before this Court, the final notification had been issued on 15/16.11.2019.

60. This Court also finds that the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India is completely fortified by the precedent law of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors. (supra) and Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra).

61. In light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is not inclined to travel beyond the bar created under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, and while maintaining the sanctity of the same, deems it appropriate to uphold all the proceedings upto the notification dated 15/16.11.2019.

62. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that although Clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including questioning of the validity of any law relating to delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them, cannot be gone into.

63. However, this Court is perturbed to see that the sanctity of th