VAIDYA BANWAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above -mentioned three writ petitions, common questions of law have been raised, therefore, they are decided by single order. In each of these petitions..challange has been given to the changes made in numbering of the wards in areas of Municipal Boards involved in these petitions in the various notifications issued in this record. It has been prayed that the numbers of the wards, as existed earlier, should be maintained and Municipal elections be held on the basis of the numbers of wards existing before the issue of new notifications, by which, numbers of wards have been changed.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 2496/90 has been filed regarding Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. It is submitted by MR. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel, that the petitioner has remained Chairman of the Municipal Board from 1982 to 1986 and, thereafter, Board was superseded. In the beginning, the Board was divided into 13 wards for the purposes of elections by the State Government in the year, 1974. In the year, 1986, the number of wards came to be increased from 13 to 16, which continue till today. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for brevity, the Act, 1959') was amended and Sub -section (3 -A) came to be inserted after Sub -section (3) in Section 9 of the Act, 1959, which provides for fixing as nearly as possible 30% seats for women. To give effect to this provision, the State Government enacted the Rajasthan Municipalities Fixation of Scats (for Women Belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Determining of Wards for Women by Rotation) Rules, 1990 (for short, 'the Rules, 1990'). It lays down the criteria for fixation of scats for women. The elections to various Municipal Boards/Municipal Councils were scheduled to be held some time in the month of July 1990, therefore, the State Government. Divided the Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana into 16 wards vide Notification dated April 19, 1990, published in Rajasthan Gazette dated April 19, 1990, the photo stat copy of which is marked as Annexure 3. By this Notification, the State Government invited objections as contemplated by Sub -section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959. In this notification, Wards No. 3,6, 8, 12 and 15 were super type reserved for women, as contemplated by the Rules, 1990, except Ward No. 8. Ward No. 4, which is a reserved ward for Scheduled Castes and from where, the petitioner, who also belongs to. Scheduled Caste, usually contested the election, was shown to be General Ward and, in its place, Ward No. 9 was shown to be a Reserved Ward. The petitioner filed representation, containing his objections to the Secretary, Election Department through Collector, Sikar stating that looking to the number of persons belonging to Scheduled Castos Word No. 4 should have been reserved for Scheduled Castes. Apart from this, it was also stated that as contemplated by Rule 3 of Rules, 1990, every third ward has to be reserved for women, therfore, instead of Ward No. 4, Ward No. 9, should be shown as reserved Ward for women. The State Government deputed the Electoral Registration Officer (SDM) Neem Ka Thana to make on the spot enquiry regarding objections submitted by the petitioner, who found that proportion of Scheduled Caste voters in Ward No. 4 was 43.34% while in Ward No. 9, it was only 31%. The Collector. Sikar, therefore, proposed that objection raised by the petitioner be accepted and Ward No. 4be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates instead of Ward No. 9. The Collector also accepted the objection of the petitioner and recommended for treating Ward No. 9 as reserved for women candidates, who also slated that reservation of Ward No. 9 for women candidates would also be in consonance with Rule 3 of Rules, 1990. He further proposed that Ward No. 8 be treated as General Ward.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel that the State Government vide final notification dated June 2,1990, arbitrarily, illegally and with mala -fide intention, changed the numbers of the wards as proposed by Shri Megotiya, which is based on extraneous and political consideration and amounts to colourable exercise of power. The logical order was proposed by the Government of Rajasthan itself in the preliminary notification dated April 19,1990, but the new numbers have broken the sequence of the wards in haphazard manner, as is evident from the map marked Schedule 'A' with the petition;