T VINAYAGAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above four Writ Petitions may be dealt with together, since they relate to a challenge made to the elections to be held for the various Local Bodies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and submissions made by learned counsel on either side are common.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 16132 of 1995 has been filed by a Voter in Ward No. 16 of Oulgaret Municipality, seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings pertaining to the Notification issued by the Secretary to Government, Development Department (L.A.). Government of Pondicherry, in G.O.Ms. No. 127/95/LAS dated 29.9.1995 and the Tables II and III of the said Notification. WRIT Petition No. 16133 of 1995 has been filed by yet another Voter in Ward No. 6, Vadhanur Paranasinga Palayam, Mannadipet Commune seeking for the issue of a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the Secretary, Development Department (L.A.) Government of Pondicherry in Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 128/95/LAS, dated 29.9.1995 and the Tables II, III and IV in the said Notification relating to the reservation of seats for the Schedule Caste men, Scheduled Caste Women and Other Backward Classes in Commune Panchayats, Village Panchayats and the reservation of offices of Chairperson., of Commune Panchayats and Viillage Panchayat Councils and consequently to direct the respondents to frame the schemes of reservation in such a way as to conform to the constitutional provisions.

(3.) WHEN the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Pondicherry contended that these Writ petitions are not maintainable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in as much as the validity of any law relating to delimitation of Constitutency or allotment of seats cannot be called in question in any Court of law, in view of Articles 243-0 and 243 ZG of the Constitution of India and as per law declared by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (AIR 1995 SC 1512), Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 6 SCC 303 and by a Division Bench in Vaikundaraj. M. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997(1) CTC296). The learned senior counsel also, while traversing the stand taken by Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13676 and 13677 of 1996 and by Dr. Krishna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in W.P. 16132 and 16133 of 1995, contended that the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125) would have no application to the case on hand and that it is not given to this Court to decide as to the legality and propriety or the correctness of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (AIR 1995 SC 1512) and Anugrah Narain Singh v. Stale of U.P. ((1996) 6 SCC 303, despite the later decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125). Strong reliance has been placed in this regard by the learned senior counsel for the State on the decisions reported in Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India (AIR 1988 S.C. 1353) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation (AIR 1995 SC 1480). The learned Senior Counsel for the State also urged that the law declared in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125) having been declared to be with prospective effect only, it will have no relevance or application to the case on hand. The learned Senior Counsel for the State also contended that the earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in G. Karunakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu (I.L.R. 1996 Madras 1) will have no application to the case, since according to the learned counsel it turned on entirely different consideration. Apart from above contentions urged on behalf of the State in defence of the Notification under challenge, he urged that the reservations have been made only in respect of the seats and not in respect of the Offices and the actual reservations made as notified in the relevant Tables are in accordance with the Pondicherry Municipal Councils (Reservations of Seats for Other Backward Classes) Rules, 1995 and Pondicherrv Village and Commune Panchayat Councils (Reservation of Seats for the Backward Classes) Rules, 1995. As for the grievance, and by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there had been no enumeration of Backward Class population and in the absence of the details relating to the same, the reservation made in respect of other Backward Classes have to be set aside, in the light of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in G. Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (I.L.R. (19%) II Madras 1), the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State contended that a Committee has been appointed for updating the Backward Classes and in the context of an interim report submitted, the Government of Pondicherry has notified by a Government Order dated 6.7.1994, 260 Castes Communities as other Backward Classes and, therefore, those notified Other Backward Classes would be eligible to claim the status of Backward Classes for the purpose of both the Panchayat and Municipal elections as against the seats reserved for such classes and, therefore, it is not necessary for the Government to wait till the final report of the Commission is made. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel for the State also contended that having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in India Sawhney and others v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 217 "Mandal Commission Case" that the reservation of 27% cannot be considered to be on the higher side and, therefore, it is contended that there is no need for any fresh enumeration of any Backward Classes as contended by the petitioners and consequently, the decision rendered by this Court in respect of the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu, will have no application to the case on hand. On behalf of the State, a further plea has been raised that W.P.13676 and 13677 of 1996 are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, s ince the Writ "Petitions were said to have been filed when the election process had already commenced and the reservation of seats for the various categories was notified by the Government on 29.9.1995 itself. As for the objections taken for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13676 and 13677 that the Amendment Act having not been reserved for the consideration of the President as per Business Rule and having not obtained the Assent of the President, the law cannot be considered to have been validly enacted, i t is contended for the State that it is always open to the Union of Pondicherry to enact law which falls within Entry, 5, List II of Seventh Schedule and the Business Rules are merely directory in nature and even any alleged violation thereof, would not affect the validity of the Act as such. Relying upon Act 20 of 1963, it is contended that the Amendment Acts need not be reserved for the consideration of the President and in respect of the Union Territory, they have not received the assent of the Lieutent Governor and, therefore, the contention that the Amendment Acts should have been reserved for the consideration of the President is not tenable.