Lisa Gill, CJ.

1. Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside interlocutory order, dated 29.05.2026, passed in W.P. No.15061 of 2026 whereby Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) i.e., appellant No.3 and respondent No.4 in writ petition, has been directed not to proceed with preliminary notification, dated 17.05.2026, which is stated to be not in conformity with Circular No.1, vide No.9/36/2017-CD(CEN), dated 13.08.2025.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that respondent/ writ petitioners filed W.P.No.15061 of 2026 for declaring action of respondents in initiating process of change of boundaries of wards in GVMC in the name of delimitation despite a ban imposed due to ongoing Census 2027 operations. Issuance of preliminary notification, dated 17.05.2026 and earlier G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 24.03.2026, was sought to be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Application seeking interim relief for restraining respondents from issuing any further proceedings pursuant to notification, dated 17.05.2026, was also sought.

4. Learned Single Bench on considering the matter directed by way of interim relief that respondent GVMC shall not proceed with preliminary notification, dated 17.05.2026. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Advocate General argues that the very same statutory exercise arising out of G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 24.03.2026, is subject matter of consideration in W.P. Nos.10658, 11246, 12122 and 12123 of 2026. In the said proceedings, learned Single Bench has specifically refused to grant interim order as prayed for vide order dated 29.04.2026, while observing that any exercise undertaken by Government of Andhra Pradesh shall remain subject to final outcome in the said writ petitions.

6. It is submitted that by way of interim order, the main relief as has been sought, has virtually been granted by learned Single Bench. It is further submitted that executive instructions dated 13.08.2025 issued by the Census Commissioner cannot be construed in a manner to override the constitutional and statutory powers of State Government in matters relating to municipal governance and elections. Delimitation exercise undertaken pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 24.03.2026, does not involve inclusion or exclusion of any village, Gram Panchayat, Municipality, Nagar Panchayat or any other administrative unit within GVMC. Territorial limits of GVMC remain unchanged. Impugned exercise only provides for re-division of wards within existing municipal limits to ensure equitable representation consequent upon enhancement of ward strength. Such exercise does not amount to alteration of jurisdiction or administrative boundaries contemplated under Census instructions.

7. Learned Advocate General further submits that expression “administrative unit” is not defined under Census Act, 1948 or Census Rules, 1990. Only reference to administrative unit is found in Rule 8(iv) of Census Rules, 1990, which reads as under:

                  “8. Notifications, Orders and Instructions to be issued by State Government-

                  The State Governments and the Union territory Administrations shall, (i)…

                  (iv) freeze the administrative boundaries of districts, tehsils, towns, etc. from the date to be intimated by the Census Commissioner which shall not be earlier than one year from the census reference date and till the completion of the census.”

8. It was vehemently argued that ward delimitation is merely an internal electoral exercise undertaken to ensure equitable representation within an unchanged municipal area and does not alter territorial limits of municipal corporation nor affects identity of administrative unit for census purposes. Ward delimitation exercise being undertaken by State within existing territorial limits of GVMC does not in any manner impede or interfere with conduct of Census-2027 operations. Moreover, freezing of administrative boundaries contemplated under Rule 8(iv) of Census Rules, 1990, is intended to preserve territorial identity of administrative unit for purposes of census enumeration and not to prohibit internal electoral adjustments within such unit.

9. It was further argued that acceptance of stand of writ petitioners would lead to anomalous consequences, while administrative boundary changes were permitted until 31.12.2025, any alteration in municipal limits or inclusion of additional areas before that date would necessarily require consequential re-adjustments of wards to maintain representative parity. Therefore, to prohibit ward delimitation thereafter would defeat the very object of democratic representation and frustrate conduct of constitutionally mandated municipal elections, which, in any case, it was emphasized, were delayed. A number of writ petitions, it was submitted, had been filed seeking directions for holding of said municipal elections immediately.

10. Learned Advocate General further submitted that there is no pleading to the effect that any legal right of writ petitioners is being affected by reorganization of wards. Petitioners claim to be voters and voters intending to participate in the upcoming elections in the Council. The right to participate in elections is not in any manner affected by exercise of delimitation. There is not even a whisper of any violation of any statutory rule. In fact, there is no statutory provision which bars carrying out of exercise of delimitation in the given circumstances. The entire election process of the municipalities shall be further delayed in case the exercise is not permitted to be carried out.

11. It was also pointed out that pursuant to issuance of notification dated 17.05.2026, present petitioners did not even file any objections and it was further submitted that in case writ petitioners even as on date file any objections, though the period as mentioned in notification has expired, such objections shall be considered by authorities in accordance with law. It was added that Census authorities have not raised any objection to carrying out process of delimitation.

12. Learned Advocate General submits that it is incorrectly observed by learned Single Bench that preliminary notification, dated 17.05.2026, is “admittedly” not in conformity with Circular, dated 13.08.2025 whereas no such admission was forthcoming on part of State and neither was such a stand taken by Union of India.

13. It was thus prayed that present writ appeal be allowed as prayed for.

14. Learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners opposed this appeal while submitting that impugned interim order, dated 29.05.2026, has been correctly passed.

15. Mr. K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that present writ appeal itself is not maintainable. It was submitted that appellant after seeking adjournments before learned Single Bench for filing counter, chose not to do so and has instead preferred present appeal. Therefore, the same should be dismissed on this ground itself.

16. At this stage, we take note of the fact that learned Advocate General had specifically stated that as it is a pure legal question which is involved for adjudication, there is no need for filing of counter in the writ petition and that arguments shall be addressed on the date petition is listed before learned Single Bench and no adjournment would be sought.

17. It was contended by Mr. K. S. Murthy that D.O. No.9/10/2025 CD (Cen), dated 27.06.2025, was issued by Registrar General, Census Commissioner, India to Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to ensure that proposals for making any change in boundaries of existing municipalities, revenue villages, tehsils, sub-divisions, districts, etc., including those which may be taken up in near future, are finalized and given effect before 31.12.2025, and to ensure that no change whatsoever is effected in boundaries of administrative units from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027, and all jurisdictional changes made on or before 31.12.2025 should be informed.

18. As per circular dated 13.08.2025, issued by Office of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, it is specifically mentioned in clause (2) that jurisdictional changes may include any of changes listed therein from (a) to (n) and clause 2(m) lists “change in ward boundaries of a town‟. Reference was also made to some of forms issued by Census Commissioner to submit that a “Ward‟ will be construed as an administrative unit.

19. It was urged that as per notification dated 07.01.2026, first phase of census-2027 i.e., house listing and housing census has commenced from April, 2026 and will be completed by September, 2026. During this phase, data of housing conditions, household amenities and assets possessed by households would be collected. It was expressed that subsequent benefits which may be released on basis of collection of this data in various schemes of the Government, etc., may be affected in case process of delimitation is finalized prior thereto, i.e., prior to collection of data. Therefore, at least collection of data should be permitted prior to finalization of process of delimitation.

20. It was further argued that wards in Visakhapatnam are being illegally increased from 98 to 120 in violation of G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 24.03.2026 though learned Advocate General raised an objection that this ground has not even been raised in writ petition, neither any such objection filed by present petitioners.

21. Learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners reiterated their arguments as above and sought dismissal of writ appeal.

22. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the file carefully.

23. It is a matter of record that in W.P. Nos. 10658 and 11246 of 2026, order dated 24.04.2026, was passed by learned Single Bench wherein it is specifically noted that there is no prohibition on part of State Government in undertaking exercise of delimitation of wards within Municipal Corporation wherein stand of State was recorded and learned Additional Solicitor General was requested to obtain proper instructions. Thereafter, on 28.04.2026, learned Single Bench refused to grant interim order for the time being while directing that exercise may be carried out by Government of Andhra Pradesh, which shall remain subject to final outcome of writ petition. Orders dated 24.04.2026 and 28.04.2026 passed in W.P. Nos.10658 and 11246 of 2026 are reproduced hereunder:

                  Order dated 24.04.2026 in W.P.Nos.10658 and 11246 of 2026:

                  “Heard Sri Charan Telaprolu, learned Counsel representing Sri Muppaneni Rajesh, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 11246 of 2026; Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.L. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 10658 of 2026; and Sri Dammalpati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents.

                  2. Registry is directed to print the name of the learned Additional Solicitor General as representing Official Respondent No.5 in W.P. No.10658 of 2026 in the Cause List.

                  3. The Office of the learned Additional Solicitor General is requested to obtain complete Written Instructions as regards the present issue. The Written Instructions from the Central Government would be necessary in light of the submissions made by Sri Dammalpati Srinivas, learned Advocate General that it is well within the purview of the Union of India to issue any kind of instructions with regard to the Administrative Units delineated in Rule 8(iv) of the Census Rules, 1990.

                  4. It is the submission of the learned Advocate General that the Administrative Units required to be frozen as existing on 31.12.2025 can only be applied to such areas which are mentioned in Rule 8(iv) of the Census Rules, 1990.

                  5. Whereas, it is further submitted that the exercise that is now undertaken by the State Government/Municipal Corporation is with regard to the delimitation of wards within the Municipal Corporation, which are not covered under the Census Rules, 1990, and therefore there is no prohibition on the part of the State Government in undertaking this exercise.

                  6. In view of the above submissions of the learned Advocate General, as recorded hereinabove, the learned Additional Solicitor General is requested to obtain proper instructions in this regard.

                  7. List on 27.04.2026 in the Motion List.”

                  Order dated 28.04.2026 in W.P.Nos.10658 and 11246 of 2026:

                  “Let Counter Affidavit be filed within three weeks. One week thereafter for filing Re-joinder, if any.

                  2. Having regard to the facts in these cases and having taken note of the order of this Court dated 24.04.2026, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim order in favour of the Petitioner for the time being.

                  3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh may go on with the exercise which it has undertaken and it shall be subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.

                  4. Post on 16.06.2026.”

24. Thereafter, on 29.04.2026, said Single Bench in W.P. Nos.12122 and 12123 of 2026 yet again considered same issue and declined to grant interim order. Said order, dated 29.04.2026 as is also reproduced in impugned order, dated 29.05.2026, reads as under:

                  “Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sripathi Ravi Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.12122 of 2026 and Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.12123 of 2026, Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 in W.P.No.12123 of 2026 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General appearing for MAUD and Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned representing Sri P. Vengal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation.

                  2. After hearing the submissions of Sri S. Sriram and Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners, and the submissions of the learned Advocate General at some length, this Court is, prima facie, not convinced that any prejudice is caused to the Writ Petitioners by increasing the number of Wards under the Impugned Notifications.

                  3. The exercise of delimitation of Wards undertaken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh would increase the number of Wards in terms of G.O.Ms.No.65, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Department, dated 24.03.2026.

                  4. Having taken note of the submissions made by Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, that the interests of prospective Contestants in the Wards and the Voters in respect of specific Wards are likely to be affected, this Court is not prima facie convinced that the exercise undertaken by the Government would in any way affect the interest of either the prospective Contestants or the Voters, inasmuch as the said persons cannot claim any vested right for this purpose.

                  5. This Court is also of the prima facie view that the exercise undertaken by the Union Government for conducting the Census, in terms of the recent Notifications, would not have any bearing on the Voters’ Rights as such, because census relates to both Voters and Non-voters, whereas delimitation of wards relates to the Election process in local bodies.

                  6. In the above premise, this Court is not inclined to grant any Interim Order for the time being.

                  7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh may go on with the exercise undertaken. However, it shall be subject to the final outcome in these Writ Petitions.

                  8. Let Counter-Affidavit be filed within three weeks. One week thereafter for filing Rejoinder.

                  9. Tag W.P.Nos.10658 and 11246 of 2026 along with these Writ Petitions and list on 16.06.2026.”

25. In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, there was no call, neither any ground for distinction of said orders passed by a Coordinate Bench leading to passing of impugned order. It is an admitted position that present writ petitioners did not file any objections to notification, dated 17.05.2026. Reference has been made to two objections filed by Ex-Corporator of Ward 22, GVMC Visakhapatnam, attached with material papers. It is furthermore not denied that no vested right of writ petitioners as such is being infringed upon by carrying out of exercise of delimitation.

26. We deliberately refrain from expressing any opinion on merits of matter lest there be prejudice to any of concerned parties. We take note of specific stand of appellants as projected by learned Advocate General that final notification, in any case, is not likely to be issued within next three to four weeks and that arguments in writ petitions, which are listed on 11.08.2026, shall be addressed.

27. In the given facts and circumstances, impugned order, dated 29.05.2026 is set aside. Learned Single Bench is requested to conclude matters expeditiously keeping in view the nature of controversy. It is yet again clarified that there is no expression of opinion on merits of the matter, which is necessarily in the realm of consideration by learned Single Bench.

28. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.