Dismissed

Narayan Devrao Kadam and Another v. the Collector, Nanded and Another

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014WP/8323/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notification revising reservation in Ward No.3 to include a Scheduled Caste seat. The Court held that since the other seat in the ward had been open for consecutive elections, the revision to rotate SC reservation was lawful. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Narayan Devrao Kadam and Another Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 8323/14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.8323/2014

¶6

Narayan Devrao Kadam & another.

¶7

...Petitioners..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Collector, Nanded & another.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶15

 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 04.12.2014

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1]Heard Shri Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for

¶19

petitioners and Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent
nos.1 & 2.

¶20

2]Challenge is to revised reservation in Ward No.3 as
prescribed in notification dated 31.7.2014 by respondent

¶21

no.1 – Collector. Revision is made by providing one seat

¶22

WP 8323/14

¶23

reserved for scheduled caste. The other seat was already

¶24

reservedforOBCwomen

¶25

and it has been maintained as it is. With the result,
open seat, which was available in Ward No.3 till then has
been eliminated.
3]This has been questioned by pointing out that the
reserved seat in Ward No.3 was falling to OBC category
since 1999 election. Thus, including 2014 reservation,
for last four elections, continuously said seat was
reserved for OBC. Submission is, therefore, in 2014 when
draws were allowed, the reserved seat in Ward No.3 could
not have been fallen to OBC and, therefore, could not

¶26

have been allotted to OBC women candidate. Contention

¶27

is, said seat needed to be rotated to some other ward and

¶28

some other reservation should have come to Ward No.3.
Effort is to demonstrate that 40% of the population of

¶29

Ward No.3 belongs to scheduled caste category and,
therefore, reservation for that category, not provided
since last more than three elections, needed to be
prescribed in 2014 ward reservation.

¶30

4]An objection on these lines was raised and on
21.3.2014, respondent no.1 – Collector found substance in

¶31

WP 8323/14

¶32

- 3 -

¶33

it. He, therefore, directed Tahsildar to submit a proper
revised position. The Tahsildar accordingly submitted a
report on 24.7.2014 and proposed that reservation for
scheduled caste (male) in Ward No.2 should be shifted to
Ward No.3. This direction has been implemented on
31.7.2014 and the earlier reservation for OBC women

¶34

category has been maintained. Thus, by deleting open
seat from Ward No.3, the report of Tahsildar has been
implemented.

¶35

5]Our attention has been invited to provisions of Rule
4-A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Rules, 1959 by
Advocate Shri Ghatge to urge that the step of deletion of
open category post from Ward No.3 is arbitrary. The
reservation was already in vogue and as such there was no
question of drawing lots and hence reference or reliance
upon lots while rejecting the latter representation of
petitioners on 13.8.2014 is erroneous. It is contended
that the reservation for scheduled caste male candidate
from Ward No.2 need not have been shifted to Ward No.3
against open category.

¶36

6]Learned AGP has relied upon provisions of Rules 4,
4-A and 4-B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Rules,

¶37

- 4 -

¶38

1959, to urge that action has been taken in accordance
with law.

¶39

7]Perusal of provisions of Rule 4-B show that they

¶40

speak of manner of allotment and rotation of seats
reserved for women. The seat to be reserved for women is
to be allotted and rotated in accordance with principles

¶41

mentioned in Rule 4-B. The allotment has to be to
different wards where seats are so reserved for such
caste, tribe or other category by drawing lots according
to instructions given by State Election Commission. It

¶42

is further mentioned that such seat for women is to be
rotated only amongst such other wards where seats are to
be reserved for such caste, tribe or category. There is
also a proviso, which requires that in subsequent
election, the earlier ward where such reservation was
provided, shall be excluded until all the wards where
such seats are required to be reserved, have been given
such reservation by rotation.

¶43

8]In present facts, we find, though there was

¶44

reservation always in Ward No.3 for OBC category,

¶45

reservation for OBC women has been provided for the first

¶46

time in 2014 election. In 1999 election, the other seat

¶47

WP 8323/14

¶48

- 5 -

¶49

in Ward No.3 was reserved for SC category. In 2004

¶50

election, it was for open, in 2009 also it was for open
and in proposed draft in 2014, it was for open. Thus,

¶51

the other seat has been shown for open category
consecutively in last two elections and even on this
occasion, it would have been continued for open category.
9]Petitioners raise the objection hoping to remove OBC

¶52

women reservation from their area. In the process, they
pointed out, non-representation of SC category. That

¶53

mistake has been corrected by the authorities within
frame-work of Rules. Petitioner no.1 before this Court

¶54

belongs to general category while petitioner no.2 is a
candidate belonging to SC category. They have not
pointed out any other ward where OBC (women) reservation
could have been provided.

¶55

10] Submission that order of Collector dated 23.7.2014

¶56

has been modified by him on 31.7.2014 cannot be accepted.

¶57

The report of Tahsildar dated 24.7.2014 is consistent
with the order dated 23.7.2014 and it has been accepted
by the Collector.

¶58

11]Taking over-all view of the matter, as we find that
seat in Ward No.3 was for open category for at least two

¶59

- 6 -

¶60

terms, we are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction when reservation to SC category has been prescribed in that ward by the notification dated 31.7.2014. The decision is not unfair or contrary to any law. There are no mala-fides . Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶61

ndk/ c412143.doc

Narayan Devrao Kadam and Another v. the Collector, Nanded and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Devrao Kadam and Another v. the Collector, Nanded and Another

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

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Zilla Parishad Jalgaon Vs Pandit Sukdeo Bhil and Ors.

Mangilal Bhukchand Jain Vs the Municipal Council, Bhusawal and Another

Shankar Kachru Kedare Vs Punjabai Shankar Kedare and Another