PRASHANT BANSILAL BAMB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective respondents waive service of rule. The petitioners in this group of petitions in substance raise identical issue. Therefore, the petitions are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order.

(2.) The petitioners seek directions to respondents to follow rotation policy for the general elections to Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra to be held in the year 2007, in compliance with the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel states that the State Election Commission under its supervision held elections to Panchayats for the first time in the year 1997 and thereafter in the year 2002. The election held in the year 1997 was conducted after the Rotation Rules of 1996 were notified i.e. on 30-10-1996. The State Election Commission ought to have rotated the seats for the next election which was held in the year 2002. In a proceeding of Writ Petition No.5386/2006, statement was made on behalf of State Election Commission on oath that the rotation policy will be followed in the next election. According to the learned senior counsel, substantial and vital time is lost by the Commission since after judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5386/2006 on 3-10-2006. The Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court by the State Election Commission against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17-1-2007. The duration of the present Panchayats would expire on 20-3-2007. Therefore, in accordance with the constitutional mandate of Article 243-E, the State Election Commission shall hold election to constitute the Panchayat before expiry of its duration. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the State Election Commissioner's version that in view of the delimitation of divisions, rotation of seats in accordance with the Rules of 1996 was not possible, is not acceptable. The learned counsel submits that the view adopted by the Commission is not correct. In view of the provisions of law, the Rules of 1996 and the constitutional mandate, State Election Commission is equipped with enough powers to hold elections by giving true meaning to the intention of the Legislature and the constitutional provisions framed in this direction. The learned counsel states that if the State Election Commission fails to rotate the seats this time, even in the next general election to the Panchayats, the Commission would not be in a position to rotate the seats. The Commission need not wait till suitable rules according to the view of the Commission are framed by the State of Maharashtra. The Commission shall make endeavour and effort to hold elections by harmoniously construing the rules and exercising its powers conferred under the Constitution.