Jodhpur, June 13 -- The Rajasthan high court has stayed the ongoing delimitation exercise for municipal wards in Taranagar (Churu), Deogarh (Rajsamand), and Badi Sadri (Chittorgarh), observing that the proposed redrawing of ward boundaries is not legally sustainable in the absence of a fresh census or any statutory precondition under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. A single bench of justice Dinesh Mehta passed the order on Wednesday while hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by elected ward members and residents from the three towns. The order was made public on Thursday. The petitioners had challenged the very initiation of the delimitation process, arguing that no revenue village were added to or removed from the municipal limits, and no new census had taken place since 2011 - the year on which the last ward delimitation was based. During the hearing, additional advocate general Rajesh Panwar, appearing for the state government, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. He submitted that Article 243ZG of the Constitution - inserted through the 74th Constitutional Amendment - along with Section 30 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, prohibits the court from interfering in matters related to delimitation. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the delimitation process was still at a preliminary stage and no final notification had yet been issued. It held: "This Court is of the view that neither the hands of the HC are tied nor can the High Court be asked to refrain from interfering by citing the provision of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India." The court further said that it was prima facie satisfied with the petitioners' contention that the delimitation exercise was both arbitrary and contrary to statutory provisions: "If the number of wards so also number of seats reserved for women and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be re-determined only upon completion of fresh census, then how can the geographical boundaries of the wards be altered or number of wards be increased or decreased, when no change envisaged under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 has taken place, more particularly when Sections 3 and 6(2) are dependent upon the preceding census and not upon the number of present voters." The petitioners' counsel, RS Choudhary and Manish Patel, also cited a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana high Court, where a similar delimitation was struck down in the absence of population change or administrative boundary revision. The bench noted that the facts and legal issues in that case were nearly identical, and the reasoning offered there was "persuasive." The court observed that: "A careful reading of Section 6 of the Act of 2009, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof, leaves no room for ambiguity that it is only upon completion of each census, the number of seats can be re-determined by the State Government by notification in the official gazette." Accordingly, the court allowed the petitioners' stay applications and ordered: "The respondent-State is restrained from proceeding in furtherance of the proposal made/sent by the District Collector or the corresponding municipalities changing the territorial precincts and number of voters until final disposal of the writ petition." The bench has listed all the petitions for final hearing at the admission stage on July 21....