DISTRICTB C MAHILA WELFAREASSOCIATION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, Rule Nisi was issued prior to the election notification and these matters were heard at length on Friday (07.06.2006) and for continuation, the matters were adjourned to 10.07.2006 and subsequent thereto further submissions were made even today. Counter-affidavits are filed in all these matters. Learned counsel representing the petitioners had brought to the notice of this court the urgency involved in these matters and requested for early disposal. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the W.P.M.Ps.

(2.) Heard Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No.13680 of 2006, Sri M.L.AIi, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No. 13630 of 2006, Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No.13718 of 2006, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No. 13895 of 2006, Smt N. Shoba, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W.P.No.13917 of 2006 and also learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing contesting respondents. Submissions also were made by certain parties who moved implead applications like Sri V Brahmaiah Chowdary and Sri Jaganmohan Reddy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions in relation to the policy of reservations, the different provisions in A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (herein after in short referred to "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) and the concerned rules governing the field and would comment that the rules had not been followed in making reservations. Learned counsel also pointed out that the percentage of voters, percentage of population and also how to implement the policy of reservations and how many Gram panchayats in respect of Mandals are to be reserved for, if so reservation under what category? Submissions at length made in relation to Sections 15 and 17 of the Act and also Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the rules governing the field. The relevant Constitutional provisions in relation thereto also had been referred to. In substance, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that the policy of reservation and rule of reservation are not being followed or implemented in true letter and spirit. The Constitutional mandate, the statutory provisions and the rules are given a go-bye and reservations are made just in accordance with certain whims and fancies. In view of the same, inasmuch as the Mandal is taken as a unit for Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat elections and the Gram Panchayat is taken as a unit for ward members if these are to be reviewed these would be chain reaction in the concerned Mandal. The reservation for backward classes in the Gram Panchayts is based on the Mandal proportionate percentage of the Backward classes of the Mandal concerned and the reservation to be reviewed and necessary clarification to be issued. Unless and until, the said rectifications are done, if elections are proceeded with, the petitioners would be put to serious loss.