Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009 v. P.Balachandar & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29.09.2011CORAM:The HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL THE CHIEF JUSTICEandThe HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW.A.No. 1846 of 20111.Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 & 2Vs.1.P.Balachandar2.The Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichy.... Respondents/Petitioner/3rd Respondent Prayer :- Writ appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patentagainst the order dated 21.09.2011 made in W.P.No.20209 of 2011 filedArticle 226 of the constitution of India praying for the writ ofCertiorari to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.218 MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply dated 28.09.2010 G.O.Ms.No.244 MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department dated 15.10.2010 andG.O.Ms.No.4 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated03.01.2011 in so far as it relates to merger of Tiruverumbur TownPanchayat with Trichy City Municipal Corporation on the file of the 1strespondent and quash the said G.O.s as void and against law. For Appellant :Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Venkatesh G.P and Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan AGP For Respondents :Mr.Raja Kalifullah for Mr.F.Rahman Sheriff for R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N TTHE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE &T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated21.09.2011, in W.P.No.20209 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge,allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government orders mergingTiruverumbur Town Panchayat with Tiruchirapalli City MunicipalCorporation. 2. The State has filed this appeal aggrieved over the order made inthe writ petition. The respondent/writ petitioner is a resident ofTiruverumbur and filed the writ petition, challenging three Governmentorders in G.O.Ms.No.218, Municipal Administration and Water SupplyDepartment, dated 28.09.2010, G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 15.10.2010 andG.O.Ms.No.4 dated 03.01.2010 insofar as it relates to merger ofTiruverumbur Town Panchayat with Tiruchirapalli City MunicipalCorporation. 3. The writ petition was filed raising the following grounds.(a) The Government orders are in violation of principlesof natural justice and opposed to equity, justice and fairplay.(b) The impugned orders were issued without following theprovisions of Section 3(1) of the Tiruchirapalli City MunicipalCorporation Act which requires prior consultation between theGovernment and Corporation and the proposal if any has to bepublished and publication has to be made in local daily newspaper so as to invite objections.(c) Publication in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette willnot amount to proper publication under the Act.(d) The objections from the general public and theresolution passed by the Panchayat were not considered and amere reference has been made to those objections.(e) The initiation of proceedings for merger of the TownPanchayat with the corporation has to commence from theGovernment and not from the Commissioner of the corporation.(f) The proposed merger is not in public interest.4. The appellants/respondents opposed the claim of therespondent/writ petitioner by contending that:- (i) As per the resolution of the TiruchirapalliCorporation, the recommendations of the District Collector, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioner of Municipal Administration and considering theother aspects as per the provisions laid down in Section 3(1)of the Act, the Government issued the orders and was notifiedin the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.(ii) The procedure as contemplated under Section 459 ofthe Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, which isapplicable to Tiruchirapalli Corporation and the procedureunder Section 3(1) of the Tiruchirapalli Corporation Act werescrupulously followed and the notification was made.(iii) Any deviation from the merger will affect theMunicipal election schedule during October 2011.(iv) As per Article 243(U)(3) of the Constitution of Indiaan election to constitute the Corporation shall be completedbefore the expiry of its duration i.e. 24.10.2011.(v) Objections were called for after giving due notice andno objections were received from the general public and alsofrom the respondent/writ petitioner on the proposal of theGovernment within the stipulated time as per Section 3(1) ofthe Tiruchirapalli Corporation Act and Section 459 of theCoimbatore Corporation Act.(vi) The delimitation of the divisions has been done basedon the Government orders and action taken to get the approvalof the delimitation of Wards Committees and the electionprocess has been started.(vii) In view of the embargo in Article 243ZF of theConsitution, the validity of any law relating to delimitationof constituency cannot be called in question.(viii) The Court should not intervene to stop the electionprocess and local body elections cannot be delayed in view ofthe stipulation under Article 234(U)(3) of the Constitution.(ix) The allegation that the merger was against public isfalse. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the proposal for mergeremanated from the Government as could be seen from the Government orderin G.O.Ms.No131, dated 16.03.2007 after which a public hearing wasconducted by the District Collector and after the said public hearing thePrincipal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administrationheld review meeting on 09.08,.2010 and based on which the Tiruchirapallicorporation passed a resolution on 27.08.2010 to include TiruverumburTown Panchayat within its limits. The learned Single Judge negativedsuch contention raised by the respondent/writ petitioner and held that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is no violation of Section 3(1) of the Act. Regarding the nextcontention raised by the respondent/writ petitioner that the Governmentpre-decided the issue, the learned Single Judge negatived such a pleaafter referring to the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.218, dated28.09.2010 and held that it is only a proposal and no final decision wastaken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.218. Thus the only other legalissue which appears to have been canvassed by the respondent/writpetitioner before the learned Single Judge was as to whether there hasbeen due compliance of Section 459 and 461 of the Coimbatore CorporationAct. The learned Single Judge by referring to Section 3 of the TrichyCorporation Act and Section 459 and 461 of the Coimbatore Corporation Actheld that paper publication of the notification is mandatory and in theabsence of paper publication, the merger proceedings suffer. The learnedSingle Judge further by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in (1985) 3 SCC 697, [State of Orissa vs. Sridhar Kumar Mallik andothers], which arose under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, held thatwithout paper publication, the impugned notifications are invalid. Thus,the learned Single Judge concluded that when law requires certain acts tobe done in a particular way, the same shall be done in such way only andallowed the writ petition. 6. The learned Advocate General Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, afterreiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavits filed in thewrit petition, contended that the writ petition was liable to bedismissed on the ground of latches and this Court will not entertain awrit petition challenging a notification concerning the election processmore so when the writ petition was filed at a belated stage just prior tothe election. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in (1996) 6 SCC 303 [ Anugrah Narain Singh vs.State of U.P]. 7. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the mergerproposal was initiated in 2007 during the previous regime and publichearing was conducted by the Collector which was communicated to theGovernment and a review meeting was conducted by the Government and it isonly thereafter the resolution was passed by the TiruchirapalliCorporation on 27.08.2010 and after further proceedings were takenincluding the approval of delimitation of Wards committee, the writpetition was filed after one year on 18.08.2011 and on that ground alone,the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It is further contendedthat in terms of Section 459 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act only aGazette notification is contemplated and as such there is no requirementfor paper publication and the interpretation of the learned Judge of theprovisions of Section 461 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act is incorrect.It is further contended that the subsequent Government orders have notbeen challenged and in view of the prohibition under Article 243ZG of theConstitution, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it iscontended that Section 461 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act, appliesonly if there is any specific prescription under the Act or if the powerunder the second proviso of Section 459 has been invoked by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government. It is further contended that the delimitation notificationhaving been issued, the same will not be interfered by this Court in viewof Article 243U(3)A and 243ZG of the Constitution of India. In supportof his contention, the learned Advocate General placed reliance thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1995) supp. (1) SCC 594[Ravindar Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Another]; (2009) 5 SCC 404,[Assn.Of Residents of MHOW(ROM) vs. Delimitation Commission of India]; (1996) 6SCC 634,[I.T.C.Bhadrachalam Paper Boards vs. Mandal Commissioner(Revenue)]; (1998) 9 SCC 594 [K.Sridhar Kumar vs. Union of India]; and2010 (6) CTC 785 [ Jaspal Singh Arora vs. State of M.P]. 8. Mr.Raja Kalifullah the learned counsel appearing for therespondent/writ petitioner contended that the initiation of theproceedings was done by the Commissioner of the Corporation and not theGovernment and the objections raised by the Panchayat for the merger wasnot taken into consideration and the Government pre-decided the issue.It is further contended that paper publication is mandatory as perSection 459 r/w Section 461 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act and in theabsence of any such publication, the notification itself is vitiated.Further, it is submitted that several persons would have raisedobjections if notification was issued in the newspapers and none wereaware till the ultimate Government order in G.O.Ms.No.4 was issued. Insupport of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on theHon'ble Supreme Court in (1985) 3 SCC 697[State of Orissa vs. SridharKumar Mallik and others] and (1986) 2 SCC 608 [Sonik Industries, Rajkotvs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot]. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions on either side andperused the materials available on record.10. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge while allowing thewrit petition, rejected two of the contentions raised by therespondent/writ petitioner, namely that the proceedings for merger wereinitiated by the Commissioner of the Trichy Corporation and not by theGovernment as required under Section 3(1) of the Trichy Corporation Act,which states that with effect from the date of the commencement of theAct, the local area included in Tiruchirapalli Municipality shallconstitute the City of Tiruchirapalli and from such date the MunicipalCorporation shall be deemed to have been established and in term of firstproviso to Section 3(1) the Government may from time to time afterconsultation with the corporation by-notification alter the limits of theCity so as to include or exclude areas specified in the notification. Itis seen that the proposal for such merger emanated from the Governmentduring 2007, by a Government order dated 16.03.2007. Under the saidGovernment order, the District Collector was directed to conduct ameeting, which was conducted on 22.12.2007 and the deliberations andminutes were forwarded by the District Collector to the Government. Itis thereafter, the Government held a review meeting on 09.08.2010, andpursuant to which the resolution was passed by the TiruchirapalliCorporation to include Tiruverumbur Panchayat within its limts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, the contention of the respondent/writ petitioner that theproceedings emanated for the first time from the CommissionerTiruchirapalli Corporation is factually incorrect and in view of thefacts noticed above, there is full and due compliance of Section 3(1) ofthe Act. 11. The next contention of the respondent/writ petitioner was thatthe Government pre-decided the issue and passed G.O.Ms.No.218 and thesubsequent Government order calling for objection, is an empty formalityand consequently, the procedure adopted is unfair and improper. We haveseen the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 28.09.2010, and fromperusal of paragraph 7 of the Government order and the language adopted,it is evident that it is only a proposal to merger five Town Panchayatswith Trichy Corporation. This is further made clear in the notificationissued in G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 15.10.2010, wherein it is stated that inexercise of power confered by sub-Section 1 of the Section 3 of theTrichy Corporation Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu after consultationwith the Municipal Corporation of Tiruchirapalli proposes to alter thelimits of City of Tiruchirapalli and notice was given that the proposedalteration will be taken into consideration after expiry of six weeksfrom the date of publication of the notification in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette and objections, if any, in writing should be addressedto the Principal Secretary to Government Municipal AdministrationDepartment. Further it is seen that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated03.01.2011, noted that during the stipulated period of six weeksobjection against the proposed alteration were not received and theGovernment proceeded to alter the limits of the City of Tiruchirapalli.Therefore, it can hardly be stated that there was any impropriety in theprocedure which commenced during 2007 and it cannot be stated that theGovernment pre-decided the issue. 12. Having held so three legal issues remains to be considered whichare as to whether the notification issued by the Government is requiredto be published in the news paper and whether there is such a statutoryrequirement under Section 459 and 461 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act;the second issue being whether the election could be intervened in viewof the embargo under Article 243ZG of the Constitution r/w Article 243Uof the Constitution. The third and final issue to be considered iswhether the writ petition is barred by latches. 13. In terms of Section 8 of the Trichy Corporation Act, theprovisions of the Coimbatore Corporation Act shall apply mutatis mutandisto the Trichy Corporation. Chapter XVII of the Coimbatore Act deals withProcedure and Miscellaneous and the relevant provisions for this casefalling under this chapter are Sections 459 and 461 and for easyreference, the same are quoted herein below:459. Publication of notifications:- Save as otherwiseprovided, every notification issued under this Act shall bepublished also in Tamil: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided that the Government shall have the power to directthat any such notification:-(i) Shall be published either in Tamil or in English only,(ii) shall, instead of being published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette, be published in any other manner specifiedby them.461. Publication in newspapers:- Whenever it is provided bythis Act or by any rule, by-law, or regulation made under itthat notice shall be given by advertisement in the localnewspapers, or that a notification or any information shall bepublished in the same, such notice, notification or informationshall be inserted in at least one Tamil and one Englishnewspaper, if any, published in the city.14. In terms of Section 459 every notification issued under the Act,shall be published also in Tamil. In terms of the proviso, theGovernment was vested with the power to direct that any notificationpublished under the Act shall be published either in Tamil or in Englishonly and instead of being published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettebe published in any other manner specified by them. Thus, it ismandatory for every notification issued under the Act should be publishedalso in Tamil. However, if the Government opines that the notificationshould be published either in Tamil or in English only or instead ofGazette publication if any other mode has to be adopted, then the samemay be directed to be done and for such purpose a separate order invokingthe proviso to Section 459 is required. Admittedly, no such order hasbeen passed by the Government by invoking the power under the saidproviso. Further, the notification issued has been published also inTamil as is evident from the documents placed before this Court in thetyped set of papers and such notification in Tamil has been published inthe Government Gazette dated 15.10.2010. 15 The learned Single Judge by reading Section 461 into 459 came tothe conclusion that such notification is mandatorily required to bepublished in the news paper. We are unable to persuade ourselves toagree with such conclusion as a bear reading of Section 461 makes itclear that such requirement is only whenever it is provided by the Act,Rule, Bylaw or Regulation requiring publication in the local news papersand if such a requirement is there in the Act, Rule, Bylaw or Regulation,then such notification or information shall be inserted in atleast oneTamil and One English news paper published in the City. Therefore, it ismanifest that Section 461 is subject to Section 459 and in the absence ofany Rule, Bylaw or Regulation stipulating that the notification isrequired to be published in the news paper and the Government having notexercise their power under the proviso to Section 459, there is nomandatory requirement for the merger notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Trichy Corporation Act to be published in the new paper. 16. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Sridhar Kumar Mallik https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (supra). In that case unlike Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Act andTrichy Municipal Corporation Act, there was a specific provision in theOrissa Municipal Act, 1950 i.e., Section 417-A, according to which beforepublication of notification declaring any area under the MunicipalCorporation, the State Government shall publish in addition to theOfficial Gazette at least in one newspaper circulating in that area aproclamation announcing the intention of the Government to issue suchnotification and inviting all persons residing within such area to submittheir objections, if any, in writing to the District Magistrate withinone month from the date of publication of the proclamation in theOfficial Gazette. Taking notice of the mandatory provision as containedin Section 417-A(1-a) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 their Lordshipsheld that since the notification did not satisfy the statutoryrequirement the same was rightly quashed by the High Court. 17. As noticed above, the language employed in Section 459 is quitedistinct from the language of the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Actand therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court isdistinguishable on facts and does not render any assistant to the case ofthe respondent/writ petitioner. Thus it is held that there is nomandatory requirement for causing a publication in the news paper and thefinding rendered by the learned Single Judge in this regard is reversed.18. Article 243U(1) states that every Municipality, unless soonerdissolved shall continue for five years. In terms of clause 3 of Article243U an election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed beforethe expiry of its duration specified in clause (1) of the Article 243U.Thus, it is evident that this provision was inserted by the framers ofthe Constitution to ensure that there should not be any delay in theconstitution of the new Municipality every five years and not to allowthe nominated bodies to continue endlessly. Therefore, this statutoryrequirement has to be met by the State Government and there cannot be anydeviation. Article 243ZG states that notwithstanding anything in theConstitution, (a) the validity of any law relating to delimitation ofconstituencies or allotment of seats made or purporting to be made underArticle 243ZA shall be called in question in any Court and (b) noelection to any Municipality shall be called in question except by aelection petition. Thus it is clear that it is not only the notificationpurporting to have been made under Article 243ZA, but also the validityof any law relating to a delimitation of constituencies shall be calledin question in any Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1998) 9 SCC 594,referred supra, while considering an election petition filed, challengingan election under the M.P. Municipalities Act held as follows:-3 ... The bar to interference by courts in electoralmatters contained in Article 243-ZG of the Constitution wasapparently overlooked by the High Court in allowing the writpetition... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. In Anugrah Narain Singh vs,. State of U.P (supra), the appealbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court was against an order passed by theDivision Bench of Allahabad High Court, whereby Municipal Election in theState of U.P. were cancelled and/or postponed and a former member of thelegislative assembly and a candidate for the post of Mayor, Allahabad,were the appellants. One of the question which was decided is as towhether in terms of Article 243ZG of the Constitution is there a completebar for entertaining any petition and their Lordship's observed asfollows:-12.... The answer must be emphatically in the affirmative.The bar imposed by Article 243-ZG is twofold. Validity of lawsrelating to delimitation and allotment of seats made underArticle 243-ZA cannot be questioned in any court. No election toa municipality can be questioned except by an election petition.Moreover, it is well settled by now that if the election isimminent or well under way, the court should not intervene tostop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, noelection will ever take place because someone or the other willalways find some excuse to move the court and stall theelections..... 15. The Court also quoted from its order dated 30-3-1982 that:(Lakshmi Charan Sen vs. A.K.M.Hassan Uzzaman (1985) 4 SCC 689)“... no High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article226 of the Constitution should pass any orders, interim orotherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing anelection, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to whichits writ jurisdiction is invoked. The imminence of the electoralprocess is a factor which must guide and govern the passing oforders in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Themore imminent such process, the greater ought to be thereluctance of the High Court to do anything, or direct anythingto be done, which will postpone that process indefinitely bycreating a situation in which, the Government of a State cannotbe carried on in accordance with the provisions of theConstitution. ... The High Courts must observe a self-imposedlimitation on their power to act under Article 226, by refusingto pass orders or give directions which will inevitably result inan indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies,which are the very essence of the democratic foundation andfunctioning of our Constitution”.25. In this connection, it may be necessary to mention that thereis one feature to be found in the Delimitation Commission Act,1962 which is absent in the U.P. Act. Section 10 of the Act of1962 provided that the Commission shall cause each of its ordermade under Sections 8 and 9 to be published in the Gazette ofIndia and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned. Upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publication in the Gazette of India every such order shall havethe force of law and shall not be called in question in anyCourt. Because of these specific provisions of the DelimitationCommission Act, 1962, in the case of Meghraj Kothari v.Delimitation Commission (AIR 1967 SC 669), this Court held thatnotification of orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 of that Acthad the force of law and therefore, could not be assailed in anycourt of law because of the bar imposed by Article 329.....29. Dealing with the provisions of the Constitution relating topanchayats contained in Articles 243-A to 243-O (which aresimilar to Articles 243-Q to 243-ZG relating to Municipalities),this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh KshettraSamiti (1995 Supp (2) SCC 305), held: (AIR p. 1528: SCC p. 331,paras 44 and 45)“It is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayatareas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will bedelimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner in whichthe same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas and theconstituencies are delimited in conformity with theconstitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof,the courts cannot interfere with the same......20. In view of the above declaration of law we have no hesitation inholding that Article 243ZG shall be an absolute bar in the instant caseas the process of delimitation shall also have an effect of law beingpart of an election process and shall have a force of law and cannot becalled in question in any Court. As observed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, referred above, it is for the Government to decide in what mannerthe Panchayat areas and the constituencies in each Panchayat area will bedelimited and it is not for the Court to state as to the manner in whichit has to be done as long as it is not in breach of the Constitutionalmandate or the statute governing the said election process , the Courtsshall not interfere. We have in the earlier part of the judgment heldthat the notification is in accordance with Section 459 of the CoimbatoreCorporation Act and therefore, in the absence of any breach of thestatutory provisions or Constitutional provisions, the writ petition isliable to be dismissed as being barred, under Article 243ZG of theConstitution. 21. Thus we come to the last issue, namely as to whether the writpetition is barred by latches. As noticed above, the entire proceedingsfor the purpose of merger of certain areas with the TiruchirapalliCorporation commenced during 2007 and we have earlier stated about thevarious steps taken for such purpose which culminated in the notificationin G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 03.01.2011, which was published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette on the same date. The respondent/writ petitionerappears to have been aggrieved by the resolution passed by theTiruchirapalli Corporation on 27.08.2010, proposing the merger, after the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision was taken by the Government in a review meeting on 09.10.2010.It is stated that in the meeting convened by the District Collector, apublic hearing was conducted. However, the respondent/writ petitionerwho claims to be a permanent resident of Tiruverumbur for 30 years andbeing fully informed about the various aspects, it is surprising that heapproached this Court after nearly one year after the Trichy Corporationresolved to propose the merger of Tiruverumbur Town Panchayat with TrichyCorporation. The writ petition was filed on 27.08.2011, by then, eightmonths had elapsed after the notification dated 03.01.2011, was publishedin the Government Gazette. In the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, no averment has been made as to why the respondent/writpetitioner did not approach the Court earlier and the latches on the partof the respondent/writ petitioner remains unexplained. That apart, it ispointed out that the after the notification dated 03.01.2011, furthernotification has been issued on 28.06.2011, fixing the number ofcouncilors and the delimitation notification has been issued on19.08.2011 which were not challenged, and the writ petition was filedonly on 28,09.2011. Therefore, it has to be held that the writ petitionis hopelessly barred by delay and latches. 22. For all the above reasons, we hold:-(i) That the decision to merger Tiruverumbur TownPanchayat with Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation was firstinitiated by the Government as required under the firstproviso to Section 3(1) of the Tiruchirapalli City MunicipalCorporation Act, 1994.(ii) G.O.Ms.No.218, Municipal Administration and WaterSupply (Election) Department, dated 28.09.2010, is only aproposal of the Government to alter the limits of the City ofTriuchirapalli so as to include the areas of Tiruverumbur TownPanchayat and other Panchayats within its limits and it is nota final decision.(iii) There is no provision under Section 459 of theCoimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, compellingthe Government to publish the notification regarding merger inthe newspaper when there is no specific order by theGovernment exercising the power under the proviso to Section459. Further, the provisions of Section 461 are subject toSection 459 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act. Therefore, thenotifications which were impugned in the writ petitions do notsuffer from any infirmity. (iv) The delimitation order which has been notified inthe Gazette shall have the force of law and shall not becalled in question before any Court and Article 243ZG of theConstitution operates as a bar for entertaining a writpetition and the writ petition is not maintainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) On facts the writ petition is hopelessly barred bydelay and laches. 23. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and theimpugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarpbn/smTo1.The Commissioner,Trichy City Municipal Corporation,Trichy.2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 61053+1cc to Mr.Rahman Sheriff Sr 60982+1cc to MR.P.s.Jayakumar, Sr 60730TEJ(CO)km/7.10.W.A.No. 1846 of 2011