Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY
Komatyreddy Pushpalatha - Appellant
Versus
Election Officer, Nellipaka Gram Panchayat - Respondent
Decided On : 04-09-96
ELECTION - RESERVATION - NOTIFICATION - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - RESERVATION FOR WOMEN - ONE THIRD OF UNRESERVED OFFICES - RULE 8 (IV) (A) OF ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY OF SECOND NOTIFICATION - CHALLENGE - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the second notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, earmarking Nellipaka Gram Panchayat in the general category, instead of exclusively for women, as per the initial notification issued by the Election Officer. The petitioner, an ex-sarpanch of Nellipaka, contended that the reservation made once cannot be altered after the election notification was issued and that the Revenue Divisional Officer was not the competent authority to notify the reservation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer was the competent authority to notify the reservations, as per the statutory Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 285, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief {elec. III) Department, dated 20-5-1995. The court further held that the second notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, earmarking Nellipaka in the general category, was valid and in accordance with the guidelines contained in clause (b) to Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid statutory Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer was the competent authority to notify the reservations? 2. Whether the second notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, earmarking Nellipaka in the general category, was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer was the competent authority to notify the reservations, as per the statutory Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 285, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief {elec. III) Department, dated 20-5-1995. 2. The court further held that the second notification issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, earmarking Nellipaka in the general category, was valid and in accordance with the guidelines contained in clause (b) to Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid statutory Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to declare the result of the election held on 27-6-1995 forthwith.
( 1 ) A great part of the Aswapuram mandal consists of scheduled areas, in respect of which the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act has no application. However, there are four villages in this mandal, which are outside the scheduled area; they are Nellipaka, Mallela Madugu, Mondikunta and Anandapuram. A notification was issued on 7-6-1995 by the Election Officer showing that Nellipaka Gram Panchayat was reserved in the general category for women. However on t-6-1995 another notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Which is to the effect that Nellipaka is ear-marked in the general category, but not exclusively for women.
( 2 ) CHALLENGING the same the present writ petition was filed by one Smt. Komatireddy Pushpalatha, claiming to be an ex-sarpanch of Nellipaka, contending that the reservation made once cannot be altered after the election notification was issued. Another ground taken in the writ petition is that the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to notify the reservation, but contrary to law, the same was done by the Election Officer. On these ground s the petitioner seeks a declaration that the election to the office of Sarpanch, held on 27-6-1995 be declared illegal.
( 3 ) ONE Mittakanti Peda Satti Reddy got himself impleaded as 6th respondent to this writ petition. He filed nomination for the office of Sarpanch and claims to have secured the highest number of votes but due to the stay granted by this Court, the declaration could not be made.
( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Sri Ravindra Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent/ we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition must fail.
( 5 ) THE competent authority to notify the reservations, as per the statutory Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 285, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief {elec. III) Department, dated 20-5-1995 is the Revenue Divisional Officer of the concerned Revenue Division. However,from the record placed before us we find that it was the Election Officer, the first respondent herein, who issued the proceedings on 7-6-1995 to the effect that Nellipaka was reserved for women. As the first notification issued on 7-6-1995 was by a person not competent to issue the same, realising the illegality, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the competent authority, issued a second notification on 10-6-1995, under which Nellipaka was shown as General category. While making the second notification the Revenue Divisional Officer strictly has followed the guide-lines contained in clause (b)to Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the a foresaid statutory Rules, which is in the following terms. "the Revenue Divisional Officer shall reserve offices for women from out of the reserved and unreserved categories on the basis of the highest proportion of the population of women to the total population of the Grampanchayat concerned in the descending order. "
( 6 ) THE following details placed before us makes the position explicit: Village
Percentage of women population
Reservation as per notification dt. 7-6-1995
Reservation as per notification dt. 10-6-1995
Nellipaka Mallelamadugu Mondikunta Anandpuram
47-92 49-15 48-03 46-87
Women Scheduled Caste General Scheduled Tribe
General Scheduled Caste Backward Class Scheduled Tribe
( 7 ) ONLY in respect of two villages, namely, Nellipaka and Mondikunta, the change was effected by the second notification.
( 8 ) AS per Rule 7 (iii) of the aforesaid Rules, one third of number of offices of Sarpanchas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and one third of the unreserved offices of Sarpanchas shall be reserved for Women in each Mandal Parishad. Explanation-II to Rule 7 (ii) says that for the purpose of reservations to the offices of Sarpanchas, the Mandal Parishad concerned shall be taken as a unit. Clause (b) of the explanation says that if a Mandal Parishad par
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.