Dismissed

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar v. the Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Nasik and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2018WP/5931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding seat reservation for Scheduled Castes in a tribal Gram Panchayat, the High Court found it impossible to intervene due to lack of updated population figures. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the Collector for consideration before seat allotment.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file representation before the Collector.

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

P.H. Jayani 01 WP5931.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5931 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar ….Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Nashik & Ors. ….Respondents

¶5

Mr. B.K. Barve a/w. Mr. Sandeep Barve & Mr. Santosh Wagh i/b. B.K. Barve & Co. for the petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. R.M. Shinde, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2018

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶11

The petitioner is the resident of the Gram Panchayat Chinchale-

¶12

Khaire, Taluka-Igatpuri, District-Nashik. Admittedly, this Gram Panchayat falls in the tribal area. The contention of the petitioner is

¶13

that seven seats are alloted to the petitioner and out of seven seats, there is no representation to the members of Scheduled Caste community in this village.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the

¶15

¶16

P.H. Jayani 01 WP5931.16.doc

¶17

application dated 03^rd July, 2009 to the Assistant Commissioner, State Election Commission, State of Maharashtra and pointed out that since 2001 no representation is given to the members of the Scheduled Caste Community in this village. After perusal of the said representation/application, we find that total population of the village Chinchale-Khaire in accordance with the census of 2001 was 978 and out of these 978, population of the Scheduled Tribe Community was 926 and there are only 46 people belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the figures of the fresh census which was carried out in the year 2011 are published and population of the Scheduled Caste Community must have been increased. He submit that at least in the election which is scheduled to be held in the year 2019, the representation must be given to the Scheduled Caste Community.

¶18

In the absence of figures of the population, it is not possible for this Court to intervene with the controversy raised by the petitioner. Facing this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file representation before the Collector, Nashik. Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶19

¶20

P.H. Jayani 01 WP5931.16.doc

¶21

(i) Leave is granted. Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶22

(ii) In the event petitioner files the representation, the Collector Nashik shall consider the same and pass appropriate order before the formation of allotment and rotation of seats to the reserved category for 2019 election of the said panchayat.

¶23

(iii) It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and petitioner's representation shall be decided independently and in accordance with the law after hearing the petitioner and other concerned officer and this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits.

¶24

(iv) Subject to above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶26

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar v. the Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Nasik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rajaram Fulaji Pawar v. the Deputy Collector, Election Branch, Nasik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhyavarti Samiti Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Others

Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. Vs Deputy Director and 3 Ors.

Mars Enterprises and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Jumman a. Kadar Shaikh and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.

Rajnarayan Chandradev Yadav Vs the Forest Conservator and Director, Sanjya Gandhi National Park and 2 Others

Mrs. Sunanda Eknath Bhaskar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.