MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise for consideration in both the Writ Petitions. Learned single Judge by order dated 4.11.2005 has referred these matters to the Division Bench since it requires an authoritative pronouncement on the question raised.

(2.) Writ Petition was preferred seeking a declaration that the reservation of Presidentship of Pulppatta Grama Panchayat in favour of women is illegal and unreasonable. Further declaration is also sought that there cannot be any successive reservation of the Presidentship of the Panchayat either in favour of SC/ST or Women and that if the office of the Presidentship is reserved either for SC/ST or Women in the previous election in the succeeding election the Presidentship should be ear-marked for general category candidates. First petitioner in W.P.C.No 28924 of 2005 was a candidate in the election held on 26.09.2005 from Ward No. 13 (Palackathodu) and the second petitioner was a candidate from Ward No. 18 (Cheruputhur) to the election to the Pulppatta Grama Panchayat and the result of which was declared on 27.09.2005 and they were elected as Members to represent Ward Nos. 13 and 18 respectively. During the year 2001 when the previous election was held for electing members of Panchayat the post of President was reserved for Scheduled Caste and during the present election, the Presidentship was notified for women. Succesive reservation, according to the petitioners, is in total violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 53 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Petitioners have pointed out that Sub-section (3) of Section 153 stipulates that only the one-third of the total number of offices of President of Village Panchayath, Block Panchayath and District Panchayath in the State can be reserved for SC/ST and women. It is pointed out that as far as election to the Pulpatta Grama Panchayath is concerned, during the previous term the office of the President was exclusively reserved for Scheduled Castes and in the present election also it was reserved exclusively for women, which according to the counsel, is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Suresh v. State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 159. Counsel submitted that in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Panchayath Raj Act if the office of the President of the Panchayat was a reserved one it cannot be considered for reservation in favour of another group in the next election.

(3.) On behalf of the State Election Commission statement has been filed on 23.8.2005 in W.P.C.No 25782 of 2005 and on 30.10.2005 in W.P.C.No.28924 of 2005. It is stated in the statement that in the year 2000 after excluding the one third Panchayats which were reserved for women, another one-third Panchayats were reserved for women. Thus two-third of the Panchayats were brought within the ambit of reservation for women under Article 243-D (4) and Section 153 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Further it is stated that one-third of the Panchayats, not so reserved for women were to be reserved for women for the general election for the year 2005. Reference was made to G.O.(Ms) No 227/2005/LSGD dated 5.8.2005 which has reserved 296 offices of President of Panchayats for women (general), 33 for scheduled caste women, 4 for scheduled tribe women and 65 for scheduled caste, 7 for scheduled tribe and the total reservation for women is 296 + 33 + 4 = 333. It is stated that on the basis of the Government Order, Commission has to reserve 333 offices of President of Panchayats for women this term. Commission therefore exempted the Panchayats, the office of President whereof were reserved for women in the years 1995 and 2000. The other Panchayats not reserved for women in the years 1995 and 2000 were reserved for women this year. Further it is also stated that those Panchayats not so reserved in the years 1995 and 2000 were not sufficient since 333 offices of President of Panchayats have to be reserved for women. Under such circumstances, it is pointed out that the Commission has not violated the principle of reservation as provided in the Section.