Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Sameer s/o Subhash Rajurkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Department of Urban Development – Respondent
Civil Application Nos.2640, 3117, 3597, 3598 OF 2020, Writ Petition No. 3323, 3519, 3351, 3361, 3466, 3491, 3492, 3501, 3510, 3511, 3556, 3934 of 2020 of 2020
Decided on : 26-05-2020
ELECTION - WARD FORMATION - DELIMITATION - RESERVATION - CHALLENGE - MAINTAINABILITY - ELECTION COMMISSION - POWER - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - INSTITUTIONAL HEARING - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - DELIMITATION OF WARDS - RATIO OF POPULATION - DEVIATION - RESERVATION AND ROTATION OF RESERVATION - CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE - COMPLIANCE - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the notification of ward formation for the ensuing election of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation on the grounds of violation of guidelines issued by the State Election Commission, improper formation of wards by overlooking geographical ground realities, non-adherence to the rules and regulations of the State Election Commission for holding Aurangabad Municipal Corporation election, and non-consideration of objections for draft notification.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the challenge is not to the law relating to delimitation and allotment of seats, but to the non-adherence to the rules and regulations of the State Election Commission, improper formation of wards, and non-consideration of objections for draft notification. 2. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine the correctness of the decision impugned. The High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot make a roving enquiry and rope in all sorts of issues. 3. The scope for judicial review to challenge the notification is narrow. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority. The role of the High Court, in such matters under judicial review, is limited to finding whether the decision-making process is adhered to and that there are no malafides while issuing the draft notification and absence of arbitrariness on the part of the Election Commission. 4. The State Election Commission has the power to delimit boundaries of wards and form wards. The power to finalize delimitation and formation of wards in a corporation election vests in the State Election Commission. 5. The exercise of powers of hearing on the objections and suggestions on the draft delimitation of wards by an officer appointed by the State Election Commission and the subsequent decision of the State Election Commission based on the report and recommendations of the officer does not amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners. 6. The State Election Commission has followed the directions of the High Court in the earlier petitions strictly and scrupulously in the process of reservation of wards and rotation of reservation. 7. The deviation from the norms of 10% + ratio in respect of certain wards while delimitation of wards/re-formation of wards is not a case of malafides and the final notification cannot be questioned on that ground. 8. The State Election Commission has taken into consideration the geographical situation of the wards, enumeration blocks, population ratio, and other factors with the constitutional provisions and other legal provisions while making the exercise of reformation of wards/delimitation of wards.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of writ petitions challenging the notification of ward formation for the ensuing election of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. 2. Scope of judicial review in election matters. 3. Power of the State Election Commission to delimit boundaries of wards and form wards. 4. Whether the exercise of powers of hearing on the objections and suggestions on the draft delimitation of wards by an officer appointed by the State Election Commission and the subsequent decision of the State Election Commission based on the report and recommendations of the officer amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Whether the State Election Commission has followed the directions of the High Court in the earlier petitions strictly and scrupulously in the process of reservation of wards and rotation of reservation. 6. Whether the deviation from the norms of 10% + ratio in respect of certain wards while delimitation of wards/re-formation of wards is a case of malafides and the final notification can be questioned on that ground. 7. Whether the State Election Commission has taken into consideration the geographical situation of the wards, enumeration blocks, population ratio, and other factors with the constitutional provisions and other legal provisions while making the exercise of reformation of wards/delimitation of wards.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the challenge is not to the law relating to delimitation and allotment of seats, but to the non-adherence to the rules and regulations of the State Election Commission, improper formation of wards, and non-consideration of objections for draft notification. 2. The scope for judicial review to challenge the notification is narrow. The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority. The role of the High Court, in such matters under judicial review, is limited to finding whether the decision-making process is adhered to and that there are no malafides while issuing the draft notification and absence of arbitrariness on the part of the Election Commission. 3. The State Election Commission has the power to delimit boundaries of wards and form wards. The power to finalize delimitation and formation of wards in a corporation election vests in the State Election Commission. 4. The exercise of powers of hearing on the objections and suggestions on the draft delimitation of wards by an officer appointed by the State Election Commission and the subsequent decision of the State Election Commission based on the report and recommendations of the officer does not amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners. 5. The State Election Commission has followed the directions of the High Court in the earlier petitions strictly and scrupulously in the process of reservation of wards and rotation of reservation. 6. The deviation from the norms of 10% + ratio in respect of certain wards while delimitation of wards/re-formation of wards is not a case of malafides and the final notification cannot be questioned on that ground. 7. The State Election Commission has taken into consideration the geographical situation of the wards, enumeration blocks, population ratio, and other factors with the constitutional provisions and other legal provisions while making the exercise of reformation of wards/delimitation of wards.
Final Decision: All the petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.
1. The challenge in this group of petitions is to the notification of ward formation of the ensuing election of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation May-2020.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The State Election Commission has published a draft notification of delimitation/reservation/ward formation of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation on 04.02.2020 and suggestions and objections were called upon from the public at large. The petitioners have submitted their suggestions/objections to the draft notification of delimitation/ward formation of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioners, census of 2011 is considered for the ensuing election of the Corporation. The population of Municipal area is required to be divided into 115 wards and after having necessary calculations, ratio of population per ward comes to 10769. However, + 10% is permissible. As such, maximum population limit per ward is 11747 and minimum population limit is 9611 per ward. Population per wards has nexus with reservation of seats of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The State Election Commission has directed that only in exceptional cases, ratio of population per ward may cross minimum or maximum limit referred above. According to the petitioners, in the process of ward formation, the ratio of minimum and maximum limit of population per ward as stated above is violated at 21 places due to political interference. Resultantly, the entire ward formation and consequent reservation is tampered with in 80 wards.
3. The starting point of ward formation is north direction and it ends in south direction in a zig-zag manner. Additional area of Satara and Deolai has been included in the Corporation in 2016, which is situated in south direction. According to the petitioners, even if population of Satara-Deolai is included, maximum increase of population per ward is 188. Wards have been increased from 113 to 115 and as such the ward formation of 2015 should not have been disturbed in north/east or west direction.
4. Around 66 wards are located in northern side of Jalna road and 49 wards are located at south side of Jalna road. According to the petitioners, in order to favour some politicians more than 80 wards of 2015 have been substantially disturbed and this has been done either to reserve or dereserve particular wards. It is contented that reservation is required to be rotated in each election in view of Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the State Election Commission has issued orders stating that while considering reservation of the wards of the current election, the reservation on the enumeration blocks of the ward shall be considered. According to the petitioners false information has been submitted in schedule 11 by the officers of the Aurangabad Municipal corporation in respect of several wards and resultantly the process is adversely affected. While carrying out ward formation, conveniently enumerated blocks, having population of SC/ST are shifted from one ward to another ward in such a manner that, ward, which would have been reserved in descending order, is unreserved and vice versa. Principle of rotation is followed but only to rotate the enumerated blocks.
5. Wards which were reserved for women in preceding election are excluded from women reservation since reservation is 50%. But as the wards are newly formed in each election the State Election Commission has directed to ascertain the reservation of women on the enumerated blocks in preceding election. According to the petitioners if total population of women enumerated blocks of last election exceeds 50% of population of newly ward formed, then it should be considered as the ward reserved for women in the preceding election.
6. In the preceding election (2015) some of the wards were reserved for the women and now in this election those wards are unreserved f
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
