M MADHU BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application inter alia has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein in reserving the office of the Chairperson, Zilla Parishad, Khammam in favour of the Scheduled Tribe in the ensuing election to the local bodies, as illegal. The petitioner is a candidate for the office of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency in the ensuing election to be held for the local bodies in the year 2001. It is not in dispute that the office of the Chairperson of the Khammam district has been reserved for the member of Scheduled Tribe. The contention of the petitioner in short is that having regard to para 23 of G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 20-4-2001 issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Elections) Department, the said office ought to have been placed in the open category inasmuch as in the last election the same had been reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The said para reads thus: The reservation of offices of Chairpersons for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Women shall be by rotation commencing from the first ordinary election held under the Act. The Offices of Chairpersons of Zilla Parishads reserved for STs, SCs, BCs and Women during the earlier ordinary elections shall not be reserved for the same categories till a cycle of reservation in that category is completed.

(2.) Mr. P. Prabhakara Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 243-D (4) of the Constitution of India as also in terms of the aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.140, the respondents herein must be held to have committed gross illegality in treating the seat to be in the reserved category. Article 243-D (4) reads thus:

(3.) The learned Counsel would contend that the word "ordinarily" must be read to mean in the large majority of cases' keeping in view the purport and object of holding of election inter alia on the ground that election is held in the State as a whole and not in the districts alone. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Jagannath Agarwala v. State of Orissa. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 4-2-1995.