JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Government Gazette Notification No. 46-VI(2)/4(d)/2022, dated 17.1.2022 on the file of the third respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the reservation for women in accordance with law considering the women population in the ward and conduct the election within a stipulated time.

1. The writ petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, is to challenge the Government Gazette Notification No. 46-VI(2)/4(d)/2022, dated 17.1.2022 issued by the Chennai City Municipal Corporation.

2. The challenge to the notification is precisely in regard to the reservation of wards in the Chennai Municipal Corporation Elections in favour of women for the ensuing election on 19.1.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per the Constitution and the statute, the delimitation of the wards should be based on the population, but ignoring the same the notification was issued.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made reference of the earlier notification by which the reservation in favour of the women was provided dividing the wards in each zone carved out by the Corporation for administrative convenience. On a challenge to the reservation of wards on each zone basis, the notification was held to be unconstitutional and struck down. The respondents while implementing the judgment dated 11.1.2022 passed in W.P. No. 25819 of 2021 [R. Parthiban vs. The Chief Secretary and Others] were required to carve out wards based on the population census of 2011 as no census took place in the year 2021 due to the pandemic Covid19. However, the respondents while issuing the impugned notification have violated Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporation (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996 [for brevity “the Rules of 1996”] and Regulation 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 [for brevity “the Regulations of 2017”].

4. Referring to tabular format in reference to the wards and the population in each ward, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is disparity in the wards as few wards are having population of more than 40,000 voters, while others are having population of 20,000 voters only. The disparity aforesaid is not permissible and otherwise a dispute on figures has not been made by the respondents. The only argument is that disparity between the ratio of population while carving out the wards is looking to the fact that in the outer area of the municipal corporation, the population is comparatively less than in the heart of the city. In case of delimitation of the wards based on the population, the city area would be having small boundaries while the outer areas would have bigger boundaries making it difficult for the administration to implement the provisions of law for the benefit of the public.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid is in violation of the constitutional mandate as also the statutory provisions and it cannot be accepted.

6. During the course of argument, an objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India read with the Rules of 1996 and the Regulations of 2017. It is precisely on two grounds, viz. (i) the notification for delimitation cannot be challenged in view of the bar imposed under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India and (ii) the elections having been notified by the notification dated 28.1.2022, interference in the process of the election is not permissible.

7. In response to the aforesaid preliminary objection, Learned Senior Counsel for the parties requested the court to first deal with the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

8. Learned Senior Co