Allowed

Gopalrao Bhagwat Sonawane v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014WP/7428/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a writ petition challenging the allotment of the Chairman's post of the Panchayat Samiti, Kopargaon, to an open category candidate via lotting, holding that previous reservation for Scheduled Caste (1997) completed the rotation, making the objection unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands rejected. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.

Gopalrao Bhagwat Sonawane Vs the State Election Commission… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp7428.14.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7428 OF 2014

¶5

Gopalrao s/o Bhagwat Sonawane .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Election Commission & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A. A. Nimbalkar, advocate holding for Mr. A. K. Shejwal, advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. V. H. Dighe, AGP for the State.

¶10

Mr. S. T. Shelke, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 9^th SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Petitioner is challenging rotation of reservation for the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Kopargaon with special reference to Scheduled Caste category for a period commencing from 14.09.2014 to 13.03.2017.

¶15

Petitioner contends that as provided under Rule 2F(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Rules, the Collector is required to distribute and notify the offices of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for the person belonging to Scheduled Caste community in a descending order beginning with the Panchayat Samiti where the percentage of population of said category is the highest. Clause (b) of Rule 2F(2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), while rotating such offices for the subsequent term, the Panchayat Samitis, where such offices have been already reserved for earlier terms for such caste shall be

¶16

wp7428.14.doc

¶17

¶18

excluded, until in all Panchayat Samitis subject to first proviso to clause (a) above, reservation of offices is given by rotation. Petitioner contends that so far as Kopargaon taluka is concerned, reservation of offices has not been provided for Scheduled Caste category although the percentage of population of Scheduled Caste in the taluka is to the extent of 12.60%.

¶19

Learned counsel for State Election Commission has invited our attention to Rule 2F(5)(a) wherein it has been provided that the Collector shall by order distribute or notify the offices for every term to be reserved for the women (including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) by drawing lots amongst the Panachayat Samitis of that District. The proviso provides that the lots in respect of the women belonging to (the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes) and the category of Backward Class of citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes) shall be drawn only amongst the Panchayat Samitis where offices of Chairman are reserved for such Tribes or Castes or as the case may be. It is contended that the office of the Chairman has been prescribed for Scheduled Caste category and as such, after drawing lots the office has been allotted to woman category. It is thus contended that harmonious reading of sub-rule 5(a) and 5(b) of Rule 2F would lead us to draw a conclusion that the office of the Chairman of Kopargaon Panchayat Samiti has been reserved for Scheduled Caste category in the year 1997 and as such rotation of providing for reservation of the Scheduled Caste so far as Kopargaon taluka is concerned is complete. The objection raised by

¶20

wp7428.14.doc

¶21

¶22

petitioner for allotting seat to open category during the recent draw of lots is not sustainable. Petition is devoid of substance, hence stands rejected.

¶23

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶24

( V. K. JADHAV ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

dyb

Gopalrao Bhagwat Sonawane v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalrao Bhagwat Sonawane v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanifabi Tajkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha Dhule Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Bhaurao Nathuji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lata Pravin Chandan Vs the Union of India and Another

Atmaram Shrirangrao Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Gangadhar Deobone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others