RAMALINGAPPA GURULINGAPPA MADARKHANDI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition, the petitioners who are residents of Hunnur Village in Jamkhandi Taluk of Bijapur District feel aggrieved by the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishadas, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A true copy of the impugned notification is to be found at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. It is seen therefrom that Hunnur Mandal has 25 seats totally having a population in the mandal at 9920 spread in as many as 5 Villages. They are Hunnur, Madarkhandi, Kadapatti Ramatirtha, Hanchinhal and Bandiganni as per Annexure-D to the Writ Petition which is described as the working sheet maintained by the Tahsildar, Jamkhandi. It is seen therefrom that Hunnur has a population of 5505 and has 14 seats. Madarkhandi with a population of 2176 has 5 seats. Kadapatti Ramatirtha with a population of 1023 has 3 seats. Hanchinhal with a population of 831 has 2 seats and finally Bandiganni with a population of 385 has one seat. This distribution of the seats among the villages is strictly in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act which provides that as far as possible for every 400 population, one seat should be provided. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 mandates that as nearly as possible 25% of the total number of seats in the mandal must be reserved in favour of women one of which in turn shall be reserved for a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste and Tribe. Similarly, Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act provides for reserving seats in the Mandal Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; the number of seats bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Mandal Panchayat as the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Mandal Panchayats bears to the total population of the Mandal provided that such reservation shall not be less than 18% of the total number of seats in the Mandal Panchayat In other words notwithstanding the strength of the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any given Mandal, they are assured a minimum representation in the number of seats on the Mandal Panchayat to the extent of 18% having regard to the express language in the proviso.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that as evidenced by Annexure-D, the working sheet, Hunnur has 3 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates out of 14 seats available. Madarkhandi, Kadapatti, Rama-tirtha and Hanchinbal villages have got one seat each making a total of six seats which is undoubtedly not less than 18% of 25 seats. Mr. U.L, Narayana Rao contends that reservation should be distributed having regard to the population of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or both in any given ward in any one of the villages. Illustrating that argument it is contended that Scheduled Caste population being highest in Madarkhandi village which has a total population of 2176 and 5 seats, more number of seats should have been reserved for Scheduled Castes in that constituency. In some of the wards of Hunnur village, though there is no Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe population, 3 seats have been reserved for them.

(3.) I do not think that there is any force or substance in the argument advanced. Undoubtedly prudence requires that where the Scheduled Caste candidates reside in large numbers such area if it is capable of being a constituency or a ward by itself providing for a seat or more than a seat should be reserved for Scheduled Caste. That should be an ideal situation. But we know that Scheduled Caste population is not distributed in that manner in any given village, town or city. Similarly reservation providing for women under Sub-section (2) does not provide on the basis of the number of women residents in any given ward or constituency delimited for purposes of election. It is obvious from Annexure-D that women who are almost equal to number of men in the whole of the Mandal have been given only reservation of 5 seats. Such seats for women are 3 in Hunnur and one each in Madarkhandi and Hancbinbal. It is also seen that Hanchinhal that seat is reserved for Scheduled Caste also. Therefore one of the two seats in Hanchinbal is reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe woman satisfying the requirement of the mandate of both Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 5 of the Act. Thus, it is easy to see that there is no legal compulsion in the scheme of Section 5 of the Act to provide for reservation of seats in various constituencies or wards of the Mandal having regard to the number of people belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or number of women residing in any particular locality. The language of Sub-section (4) makes it abundantly clear that the proportion of reservation in favour of women and, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates who bear relation to the total number of seats and not to the population distribution in the Mandal. Petitioners cannot therefore be said to be aggrieved and the Writ Petition is misconceived. Therefore it is rejected.