Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.JAGMOHAN REDDY, S.OBUL REDDY
P.Mastanaiah - Appellant
Versus
Delimitation Commissioner, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-66
DELIMITATION COMMISSION ACT, 1962 - SECTION 9, 10 - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DELIMITATION COMMISSION'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The Delimitation Commission allotted a reserved seat for Scheduled Castes to Sarvepalli instead of Gudur, which had a slightly higher proportion of Scheduled Castes population. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Commission had not followed the procedure laid down under Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, and that the order published under Section 10(2) of the Act did not have the force of law under Article 329 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Delimitation Commission had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act and had taken into consideration the factors specified in the said section. The court also held that the order published under Section 10(2) of the Act had the force of law and could not be called in question.
Issues: 1. Whether the Delimitation Commission had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962? 2. Whether the order published under Section 10(2) of the Act had the force of law under Article 329 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Delimitation Commission's decision to allot a reserved seat to Sarvepalli instead of Gudur was arbitrary or unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Delimitation Commission had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act and had taken into consideration the factors specified in the said section. The court observed that the Commission had held public sittings, heard objections, and considered all relevant factors before making its decision. 2. The court held that the order published under Section 10(2) of the Act had the force of law and could not be called in question. The court relied on the provisions of Section 10(2) and (3) of the Act, which state that the order shall have the force of law upon publication in the Gazette of India and shall be laid before the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of the State. 3. The court held that the Delimitation Commission's decision to allot a reserved seat to Sarvepalli instead of Gudur was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court observed that the Commission had taken into consideration the relevant factors, including the geographical compactness of the constituencies, the existing boundaries of administrative units, the facilities of communication and public convenience, and the distribution of Scheduled Castes population in the different parts of the State.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that the Delimitation Commission had followed the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Act, that the order published under Section 10(2) of the Act had the force of law, and that the Commission's decision to allot a reserved seat to Sarvepalli instead of Gudur was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Gopalrao Ekbote, J. , dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging a notification of the Delimitation Commission issued under Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962. It appears that three seats had to be reserved for the Nellore District, and the question that the Delimitation Commission had to decide was as to which of the constituencies these seats have to be allotted or assigned. Prior to the present delimitation, it is stated that Gudur, Sulurpet, and Venkatagiri each had one reserved seat for scheduled castes. This time, the Delimitation Commission instead of assigning or allotting one reserved seat to Gudur, has allotted the same to Sarvepalli, which has a general population of 1,33,140 and a scheduled castes population of 30,483 while Gudur has a general population of 1,27,566 and a scheduled castes population of 32, 481. The challenge is with regard to this change in the allotment of the reserved seat to Sarvepalli in preference to Gudur which admittedly has a slightly higher proportion of scheduled castes population compared to the general population. We may state that the difference in the proportion of scheduled castes population in the constituencies of Gudur and Sarvepalli in 2. 3 per cent, Gudur having 25. 46 per cent and Sarvepalli having 23. 16. It may also be noticed that as compared to Venkatagiri which has 23. 07 per cent of scheduled castes population, Sarvepalli has a slightly higher percentage of 23. 16. The Commission under S. 5 of the Act has to associate with itself for the purpose of assisting it in its duties in respect of each State, nine persons, four of them shall be members of the House of the People representing that State and five shall be members of the Legislative Assembly of that State. Once the allotment of seats has been made for each State, Constituencies are delimited in that State and the process of allotting reserved seats to those constituencies has to be taken up by the Commission. Section 9 of the said Act deals with the delimitation of these constituencies in the following terms:-" (1) The Commission shall, in the manner herein provided then distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each state and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State to single member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census figures, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and the following provisions, namely:- (a) all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience: (b) every Assembly constituency shall be delimited as to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency; (c) constituency in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes shall be distributed in different parts of the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total is comparatively large; and (d) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total is the largest. (2) The Commission shall (a) publish its proposals for the delimitation of constituencies, together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of an associate member who desires publication thereof, in the Gazette of India and official Gazettes of all the States concerned and also in such other manner as it thinks fit; (b) specify a date on or after which the proposals will be further considered by it; (c) consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received by it before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, hold one or more public sittings at such place or places as it thi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
