As to non-compliance of this Rule as raised in Para Nos.8 & 9 of the Writ affidavit contending that the boundaries of the wards have been fixed by taking into account of the boundaries of the assembly constituencies, but not taking into account of the natural boundaries, geographical features and contiguity of the area. The petitioner did not disclose the details of any such violation, except making a bald allegation. The delimitation process is not commenced from the NorthEast of geographical boundary of Corporation, but that itself is not a ground to set aside the Notification, since the language used in the Rule 4, it is not mandatory. Hence the 3rd respondent is required to take into consideration of the geographical features and contiguity of the area. Whenever, natural boundaries need not be adopted, survey numbers, T.S. numbers, important junctions or lanes shall not considered as far as possible. The last words ‘as far as possible’ indicate that it is not a mandatory, therefore, failure to comply Rule 4, itself is not a ground to set aside the Notification in Form-I and Form-VI, published in the Gazette. Therefore, on the ground of violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996, preliminary notification cannot be set aside. On the other hand, on perusal of Notification in Form-1 and Form-VI, the 3rd respondent specified the boundaries and description of each ward strictly in compliance of the Rules 6 & 7 of the Rules, 1996, therefore, based on non-compliance of the Rules 4, 6 & 7, the Notification cannot be set aside, since the 3rd respondent complied the requirements in substance.
