KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard respective counsel. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent and taken for final hearing.

(2.) A very short question of interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, arises for our consideration in this writ petition.

(3.) Petitioner is resident of cantonment area, Aurangabad, and elections of Cantonment Board, Aurangabad, are round the corner. Respondent no.2 published a draft of Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 31 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The Cantonment Board has also published a draft for division of cantonment into wards on the notice board as well as in the local newspapers on 10.9.2007 inviting objections and suggestions. After considering the objections and suggestions, the wards were formulated and taking into consideration the latest census figures of the Cantonment Board, seven wards were formulated out of which Ward No.7 was declared as reserved for scheduled caste.