Allowed

Govind Chandrappa Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2005WP/5502/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner challenged the bar on BSN rotation due to prior women's reservation. Despite counsel's reliance on a Division Bench precedent accepting the plea, the Court held that general reservation for women counts as reservation, thereby preventing certain the rotation for OBCs in subsequent years, and allowed the petition to correct the notification.

What did the court decide?

The Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to correct the relevant notification for the election to the post of Sarpanch.

Govind Chandrappa Gurav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO. 5502 OF 2005

¶3

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of :
 coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders
 or directions and Registrar Orders:

¶4

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5

 Mr.Amit Sale for the Petitioner.
 Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for
 Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
 Mr.P.D. Dalvi for the Intervenors.

¶6

 CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
 MRS. R.S. DALVI, JJ.
 DATE : 30TH AUGUST 2005
P.C. :
 1. Heard the learned counsel for
 the parties.
 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable
 forthwith. All the learned counsel
 are heard.
 3. The petition is filed making a
 submission that there cannot be a
 reservation in the post of Sarpanch
 once the reservation is made in the
 earlier period. Reliance is placed on
 second proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule

¶7

 2A of the Bombay Village Panchayat
 (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election

¶8

 Rules, 1964. This second proviso lays

¶9

 down that while rotating the offices in

¶10

 the subsequent elections, the
 panchayats, where such offices were
 already reserved in the earlier
 elections for women of various

¶11

 categories, shall be excluded until in
 all such panchayats reservation of

¶12

 offices is given by rotation. Mr.Sale

¶13

 for the Petitioner submits that in view

¶14

 of the fact that there was reservation

¶15

 for women during the last 5 years,

¶16

 there cannot be reservation this time

¶17

 for the Other Backward Class. He

¶18

 relies upon a judgment of a Division

¶19

 Bench in Writ Petition No.3314 of 2000

¶20

 wherein this plea was accepted.

¶21

 4. Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel for

¶22

 the Intervenors, submits that on the

¶23

 last occasion the reservation was for

¶24

 women in general and, in his

¶25

 submission, this cannot be said to be

¶26

 reservation. It is not possible to

¶27

 accept this submission. The
 reservation for women of all categories

¶28

 or from the general background is also

¶29

 a kind of reservation as against men

¶30

 and, therefore, when this rule is

¶31

 looked at, the way it is framed, there
 cannot be reservation in the subsequent

¶32

 years.

¶33

 5. In the circumstances, we allow
 this petition and direct the

¶34

 Respondents to correct the relevant
 notification for the election to the
 post of Sarpanch in this village. The
 Collector will take necessary steps

¶35

 within about 3 weeks.

¶36

 6. Rule is made absolute as above.

¶37

 (H.L. GOKHALE, J.)

¶38

 (MRS. R.S. iDALVI, J.)

Govind Chandrappa Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Chandrappa Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Lahudas Pisal Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Shivaleela Laxman Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pradeep Devidas Malolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Babaso Daji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra M.Chendekar Vs the Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Straycon Architect, Vs Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Ors.