DHANANJAY MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH these cases have been heard on different dates and judgments/orders were kept reserved on different dates i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th August, 2005, since 'they relate to reservation of the offices and seats of Chairpersons of Panchayats at all levels, all of them are being disposed of by this common judgment. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of "The Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996" (Act 40 of 1996) hereinafter to be referred as 'PESA Act, 1996, certain provisions of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and Scheduled Areas (States of Bihar, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977 have been challenged by the petitioners. Prayer of the petitioners :

(2.) PETITIONER Dhananjay Mahto of CWJC No. 3591 of 1997 (R) and petitioner Ganga Prasad Singh and others of WP (PIL) No. 3877 of 2002 have challenged the 2nd provision to Clause (g) of Sec. 4 of PESA Act, 1996, whereby and whereunder, all seats of Chairpersons of Panchayats at all level in the scheduled areas have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.

(3.) PETITIONER Raja Ram Mahto of WP (PIL) No. 747 of 2001 and petitioner Rakesh Kumar of WP (PIL) No. 2728 of 2002 while challenged Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, in general, at the time of argument, their counsel have confined their arguments in regard to validity of reservation up to 80 percent of the seats at Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishad level and have also questioned the validity of Sub -clause (6) to Article 243 of the Constitution of India, alleging it to be ultra vires to the Constitution.