C SATYANARAYANA Vs. SECRETARY HOUSING MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a voter in Boudhnagar Constituency of Hyderabad 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-Secunderad Municipal Corporation in or about April, 1970. But the Boudhnagar Constituency was declared to have been reserved for women contestants under Section 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. Blocks 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 of 5,632 and hence the Miryalguda 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 find several others and they proposed to proceed with the elections of 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 Dooartmont, Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Secretary to the said Department. The petitioner, therefore sepks the issuance of the writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order declaring Clause (c) of 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 in connection with the ensuing elections to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on the basis of the impugned Clause (e) 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 ultra vires.

(3.) We find ourselves unable to accent 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 other hand, the largest population of men and women put together was taken as the basis. This is clear from Clause (c) of Section 8 (1) of the Amended Act which reads as follows: