BIBHUTI B. PATTNAIK Vs. STATE ANDORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made in all these writ petitions to the validity of Section 11 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (as amended by Orissa Act 9 of 2012) and the petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the said provision is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the dictum of the Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishna Murty vs. Union of India reported in : (2010) 7 SCC 202. Consequently, they have also sought for a declaration directing the opposite parties to conduct elections after preparing fresh reservation lists as mandated in the Judgment in the case referred to above. The main contentions raised in the batch of writ petitions are as follows: -

(2.) THE State has filed preliminary counter affidavit on 30.7.2013 while seeking the following liberty.

(3.) THE State has sought to justify 27% of reservation for OBC by relying on Section 11(3) of the Orissa Municipal Act and further proceeded to state that in a given situation where population ratio of a Municipal area necessitates proportionate reservation of more than 23% seats for S.C. and S.T. when combined with the reservation of 27% for OBC, the total reservation is bound to be more than 50% and that being the mandate of the Statute, it is duty bound to follow the same. It is the further stand of the State that 2011 Census came to be published on 30.5.2013 whereas the State Election Commission required the State to complete the delimitation and reservation process by 31.1.2013, basing upon the population figure of 2001 Census. Therefore in order to complete the Statutory formality in time to conduct the election, the same was undertaken on the basis of the 2001 Census.