IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 Rajesh Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner is to quash the notification dated 14.12.2024 and Final Voter List/Electoral Roll, wherein huge margin of total voters between 31 Wards of Municipal Council, Thanesar has been shown.

2. The principles for delimitation of wards of Committee, as per Rule 7 of Haryana Municipal Delimitation of Ward Rules, 1977, lays down that the adhoc body shall observe while conducting delimitation of wards of Committee that the population of each ward as far as practicable should be the same throughout the Committee with a variation upto 20% above or below the average population per ward. Taking clue from the aforesaid provision, a challenge has been made to the delimitation of the Municipal Council, Thanesar wherein 32 wards have now been notified by the Haryana Government on 14.12.2024.

3. Learned counsel has taken us to the number of voters in the various wards as noticed on 24.12.2024 and 15.01.2025 which reflects that there is an enhancement from 1,35,348 total number of voters which existing as on 24.12.2024 increased to 1,38,293 as on 15.01.2025. He submits that distribution of voters has however not been proper in the various wards and that is why, in certain wards, the number of voters go upto 5,000 and above, and in certain other wards, the number of voters is even less than 3,000. Thus, he submits that in the circumstances, there was no occasion to have delimitation of 3 different wards namely ward Nos.216, 218 and 231. So far as the Rule 7 as noticed above is concerned, the same is based on the total population existing and the distribution of population of the area. The petitioner has tried to interpret the population to mean the number of voters which is found to be wholly misconceived. While there may be change in the number of voters depending upon the number of persons in the total population having attained majority, and the persons who may expire in a particular area. The population reflects the overall number of people residing in an area which may include the persons who are still not attained majority and even those who may not be even registered as voters. The voter list thus has no relevance for the purpose of delimitation of wards in a particular Municipal Council or Corporation and a challenge to such delimitation on the said basis is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. In view thereto, the entire basis of challenge is found to be misconceived and we do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

5. The pending misc. application, if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)

JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)

07.02.2025 JUDGE

D.Bansal