SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NARESH H. PATIL AND R.M. BORDE, JJ.
Prashant Bansilal Bamb — Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra — Respondent
W. P. Nos. 6389, 7232, 7267, 7410, 7517 and 7731 of 2006
Decided on 9th FEBRUARY, 2007.
Advocates Appeared
Petitioner were represented by P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel,
P.S. Shendurnikar, S.V. Gangapurwala, V.D. Salunke,
S.B. Patil, P.G. Rodge and Y.V. Kakade
Respondents were represented by S.T. Shelke, D.R. Kale,
N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader V.S. Panpatte,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Election Commission must effectively implement the rotation policy for reserved seats in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions for the Panchayat elections.

Headnote:

Rotation Policy - Panchayat Elections - Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996 - Article 243-D, Article 243-E

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought directions to the respondents to follow the rotation policy for the general elections to Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra in compliance with the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996. The State Election Commission had not followed the rotation policy in the previous elections and faced difficulties in implementing the rotation of reserved seats for the upcoming elections.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the State Election Commission had not effectively implemented the rotation policy as per the Rules of 1996 and had faced difficulties in doing so. The Court held that the Commission must take effective steps to implement the rotation policy in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions for the ensuing Panchayat elections in the State of Maharashtra.

Issues: The main issue was the non-implementation of the rotation policy for reserved seats in the Panchayat elections as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the State Election Commission must take effective and meaningful steps to implement the spirit of the constitutional and legal provision of rotation policy while reserving the seats in the ensuing Panchayat elections in the State of Maharashtra.

Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the Court directed the State Election Commission to implement the rotation policy for reserved seats in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions for the ensuing Panchayat elections in the State of Maharashtra.

ORAL JUDGMENT Naresh H. Patil, J.:—1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective respondents waive service of rule. The petitioners in this group of petitions in substance raise identical issue. Therefore, the petitions are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order.

2. The petitioners seek directions to respondents to follow rotation policy for the general elections to Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra to be held in the year 2007, in compliance with the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996.

3. The learned Senior Counsel states that the State Election Commission under its supervision held 6 elections to Panchayats for the first time in the year 1997 and thereafter in the year 2002. The election held in the year 1997 was conducted after the Rotation Rules of 1996 were notified i.e. on 30-10-1996. The State Election Commission ought to have rotated the seats for the next election, which was held in the year 2002. In a proceeding of Writ Petition No.5386/2006, statement was made on behalf of State Election Commission on oath that the rotation policy will be followed in the next election. According to the learned senior counsel, substantial and vital time is lost by the Commission since after judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5386/2006 on 3-10-2006. The Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court by the State Election Commission against the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 17-1-2007. The duration of the present Panchayats would expire on 20-3-2007. Therefore, in accordance with the constitutional mandate of Article 243-E, the State Election Commission shall hold election to constitute the Panchayat before expiry of its duration. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the State Election Commissioner’s version that in view of the delimitation of divisions, rotation of seats in accordance with the Rules of 1996 was not possible is not acceptable. The learned counsel submits that the view adopted by the Commission is not correct. In view of the provisions of law, the Rules of 1996 and the constitutional mandate, State Election Commission is equipped with enough powers to hold elections by giving true meaning to the intention of the Legislature and the constitutional provisions framed in this direction. The learned counsel states that if the State Election Commission fails to rotate the seats this time, even in the next general election to the Panchayats, the Commission would not be in a position to rotate the seats. The Commission need not wait till suitable rules according to the view of the Commission are framed by the State of Maharashtra. The Commission shall make endeavour and effort to hold elections by harmoniously construing the rules and exercising its powers conferred under the Constitution.

4. Affidavits-in-reply were filedby the contesting respondent. The stand of the State Election Commission is that the State Election Commission had undertaken delimitation of constituencies as per provisions of section 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 8 1961"). According to the Commission, the final census figures were available with the Commission in the year 2003 and based on the same, delimitation of the electoral division was done by the Commission. The Commission finds difficulty in rotating the reservation of seats in accordance with the Rules of 1996. The Commission has treated the present election to be the first election after delimitation of the electoral divisions after census figures of 2001 were made available. According to the learned counsel Shri. Shelke appearing for the Commission, the reserved seats were not rotated but the reservation was provided considering this election to be the first election after carving o






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top