SUNDARABAI RAMCHANDRA GAHILE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 4-10-1995, Collector, Ahmednagar reserved Chairmanship of Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar for the category of backward class of citizens including Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes. This was on the basis of the lots drawn in presence of the officers and the representatives of the political parties in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Collector on 29-9-1995. This order came to be challenged in Civil Suit bearing No. 585 of 1995 before the learned Civil Judge, S. D. , Ahmednagar. An application for interim relief was also filed. The learned Civil Judge rejected the prayer for the interim relief. In Misc. Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1995 which is still pending before the learned District Judge, 5th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar was pleased to reject the prayer for the interim relief seeking stay of election of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Ahmednagar. This Revision challenges the Judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Jt. Civil Judge, S. D. , Ahmednagar and the order passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar.

(2.) SHRI A. H. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that a procedure has been laid down by Part II of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (President, Vice President and Chairman of Sub Committees) and Panchayat Samities (Chairman and Deputy Chairman) (Election) (Amendment) Rules, 1995, as to how the seat of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is to be reserved and Rule 2 E speaks about Governments power to specify number of offices of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti in the State reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and category of Backward Class of Citizens (including Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes and Women (including the women belonging to such Castes, Tribes and the Backward Classes ). Rule 2f provides for manner of allotment and rotation of offices while making such reservation. According to Shri Joshi, sub rule 2 (a), 3 (a), 4 (a) and 5 (a) providing for the reservation of the post of Chairmanship excludes all such Panchayat Samitis from being considered for replacement in the rotation of reservation wherein atleast two seats are reserved for the category for which the chairmanship is to be reserved. According to him, this is one of the basic requirements in the absence of which, reservation will neither be legal nor justifiable. Shri Joshi states position that there is no seat reserved in the Panchayat Samiti of Ahmednagar for Backward Class is because of the fact that law which was applicable at a time when the election of Panchayat Samiti had taken place did not provide any such reservation in favour of Other Backward Class. But according to Shri Joshi if the reservation roster would have been properly made and the chairmanship is not reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes wherein at least two members of that category have not been allotted reserved seat in the membership of Panchayat Samiti, then the whole roster would have been changed and it is likely that Ahmednagar Constituency would not have been reserved for other Backward Class community. Pointing to this eventuality, he submits that the whole election process would go waste in view of the fact that the rules framed have not been strictly followed by the Respondent Collector.

(3.) SHRI Kishor Patil learned Assistant Government Pleader, defending order of the Collector, pointed out that the challenge to the allotment and distribution of seats of reservation for the chairmanship of the Panchayat Samiti is not questionable in any Court by virtue of the protection granted to it by Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Shri Patil further submitted that the provisions of sub-article (B) of Article 243-O are anomolous to the provisions of Article 329 (B) of the Constitution of India whereby elections are permitted to be challenged only once and that too by an election petition provided for.