on behalf of the State Election Commission that the rules are not harmoniously drafted and there are impediments in their implementation, more particularly, in delimitation of seats based on census figures of 2011. It was contended that the boundaries of the wards have undergone change due to fluctuation of policy and as such, it was not possible to maintain reservation of electoral division in descending order. Zilla Parishad elections were held in adherence to the rules of 1996 and seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Election Commission contended that rotation system will be adhered to during the subsequent elections. The stand of the Election Commission was disapproved by this Court for more than one reasons including the ground of defiance of the earlier order passed by this Court in the matter of Uday Pawar (supra). Learned senior counsel for petitioners contends that the Rules of 2011 framed by the State Government must be followed in its letter and spirit including explanation to sub-rule 5 of rule 7 whereunder it is provided that the general elections held after commencement of the rules shall be considered to be the first election. It is contended that after framing of Rules of 2011, the proposed elections to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation are the first elections and as such, rotation of seats is not permissible. It is contended that by making appropriate deviation, the mandate of rules 3, 4 and 6 and 7 needs to be adhered to. It is also contended that even on consideration of the directives/orders issued by the State Election Commission on 03.05.2005, more particularly, paragraphs 21 and 22, the election based on census figures of 2011 shall be the first election and in view of paragraph no. 22, rotation of seats shall have to be provided in the
