PRASANT BANSILAL BAMB Vs. NANAD LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6389/2006, thereby pointing out to the notice of this court the acts of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which, according to the petitioner amounts to contempt of court.

(2.) An order dated 20th June, 2006 prescribing reservation of seats in the electoral divisions of Aurangabad District for Zilla Parishad General Elections, 2007 was issued by the Election Commission for the State of Maharashtra. Writ Petition No. 5386/2006 came to be filed raising a grievance that the reservation of seats for the said elections was not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules" for the same of brevity). The said petition was heard finally by the Division Bench of this court The main grievance of the petitioners in the said petition was that as the said rules were not made applicable, the reservations in most of the constituencies were repeated. It was submitted that if the rotation was worked out in accordance with the said rules, the repetition in reservations would be avoided. A ground was raised by the State Election Commission before the Division Bench of this court that the said rules of 1996 will not be applicable to the elections which are scheduled to be held in 2007 and they would be applicable only in the subsequent elections that may be held. This court found that with the increase in the number of electoral divisions the reservation is likely to be repeated in respect of some electoral divisions. This court further observed that, "however, the respondents ought to exercise proper a care to see that as far as possible the reservation is not repeated. This does not appear to have been done. The respondents have not observed the aforesaid it Rule 4 of 1996 in its letter and spirit. spirit."(emphasis supplied). A ground regarding tenability of the petition in view of the Constitutional bar under Article 243 was also urged before this court by the State Election Commission. However, this court found that since the respondents have neither produced before this court the notification nor have stated the date of notification declaring the election, the said ground was without substance and as such, rejected the said contention.

(3.) This court, therefore, vide order dated 3rd October, 2006 made rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) of the said petition, thereby quashing and setting aside the reservation as was directed by order dated 20th June, 2006. This court further directed the respondents to forthwith allot the reservation by observing the rotation policy in its letter and spirit.