SATYANARAYANA Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER M C H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a voter in Boudhnagar Constituency of Hydera bad Municipal Corporation. A notification in G. O. Ms. No. 1079 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette NO. 276 dt. 12-11-79 was issued for holding elections for Hyderabad-Secunderabad Municipal Corporation in or about April, 1980. But the Boudhnagar Constituency was declared to have been reserved for women contestants under sec. 8 (1) (c) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act of 1979. The Petitioner contends that Boudhnagar Constituency consists of less women population than the Constituency No. 95 Chilkalguda Ward No. 11, Block Nos 1 and 4 and Constituency bearing No.96 called Miryalguda Constituency. While Boudhnagar Constituency consists of 6, 176 women as against 9, 550 men, Constituency No. 95 Chilkalguda consists of 3,163 women population as against 3,329 male population and Miryalguda Constituency consists of 5,384 women as against male population at 5,632 and hence the Miryalgu- da Constituency should have been reserved for women on the basis of highest women population.By the notification G.O.Ms.No.1079 dated 12-11-1979, the Boudhnagar Constituency is reserved for women on the ground that it has largest population of both men and women put together. As the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was made on the basis of largest population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner contends that the principle followed in the case of reservation of the constituencies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not followed in the case of reservation for women and hence the amendment is discriminatory and it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as no intelligible differentia is disclosed for such reservation irrespective of women population and thus the object of the amendment to provide for greater representation to women is not achieved by the amendment. The petitioner further contends that as he intends to contest the election from Boudhnagar Constituency and he has very good chances of succeeding in the forthcoming elections from the said constituency, his interests are jeopardised by reason of the said unjust classification and reservation for women and hence the amendment is ultra vires. Though representations were made before the respondents questioning the validity of the amendment, the respondents paid no attention and ignored the representations made by the petitioner and several others and they proposed to proceed with the elections on the basis of the said classification as notified in the notification by the Government published in the Gazette No. 276 dated 21-11-1979 issued by the Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Secretary to the said Department. The petitioner therefore seeks the issuance of the writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order declaring clause (c) or Section 3 of the Amending Act 17 of 1979, amending Section 8 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as ultra vires and to restrain the respondents from taking any further steps ia connection with the ensuing elections to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on the basis of the impugned clause (c) of Section 3 of the Amending Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the principle adopted in the case of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has not been followed in the case of reservation for women, the Amending Act is discriminatory and hence offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also contends that as no intelligible differentia is disclosed for such a reservation irrespective of women population and the object of the amendment to provide for greater representation to women is not achieved by the amendment, the Amending Act should be declared as ultravires. We find ourselves unable to accept any of these contentions. It is true that in providing the constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the largest population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, was taken as the basis. But in providing the constituency reserved for women, the same principle is not followed. On the II] C. Satyanarayana vs. Special Officer, M.C.H (Punnayya J) 83 other hand, the largest population of men and women put together was taken as the basis .This is clear from clause (c) of Sec. 8 of the Amended Act which reads as follows : "determine the divisions in which the seats shall be reserved for women having regard to the principle that the seat shall be reserved in that single division, which in the opinion of the Government has the largest population, according to the last census, irrespective of women population in that division." From this it is clear that the reservation is not made on the basis of the largest population of women, but on the basis of the largest population of both women and men put together in the Constituency. The learned counsel for the petitioner comments that sub-section (c) of Sec. 8 is hit by Article 14 in as much as it has not taken the population of women as the basis, though in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the population of the castes or the Tribes was taken as the criterion for reserving the Constituencies for them. He also contends that the amendment is discriminatory and it offends Art. 14, as no intelligible differentia is disclosed far such method as to reservation and the object for which the reservation is provided is not achieved by the amendment. We find it difficult to accept these contentions.

(3.) In the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there are certain sociological problems and peculiarities. In every constituency the population of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes will not be found or available. In a few constituencies only Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes will be found. Hence the Legislature in its wisdom felt it desirable to provide a particular constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the existence of the largest population of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be in that particular constituency. But in the case of women, that is not the position. In every constituency the population of women will be found along with the population of men. In some constituencies the women population may be more than the male population and in some other, male population may be more than the female population. Hence the Legislature felt it desirable to provide a constituency reserved for the women on the basis of the existence of the largest population.