The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allotment of reservation for BCC and women must adhere to the statutory provisions and legislative intent. Judicial review is limited to ensuring that the process is in accordance with the rules and legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for final hearing at admission stage by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners have approached this court under 226 of constitution of India raising common challenge to the order dated 30.9.2022 passed by the State of Maharashtra, thereby fixing the reservation to the seats of Presidents of respective Zilla Parishads for ensuing elections. The petitioners claim to be residents of Dhule and belong to the Backward Class. Broadly, the grounds of challenge to the impugned order can be summarized thus :-

a] The impugned order restricts 20.58% of total seats for BCC reservation, although in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, 23.54% of total seats are required to be reserved. Consequently, 8 seats out of 34 seats of president available in the state ought to have been reserved for BCC (as against 7 seats earmarked).

As such, out of 8 seats available for BCC, 4 seats need to be reserved for BCC women (against 50% quota for women).

Instead, impugned order provides reservation of only 3 seats for BCC women.

b] The reservation for women has been repeated at Sangli District though it could have been avoided by applying Rule.

c] Impugned order is passed de hors mandate of relevant rules requiring draw of lots for fixing the reservation for BCC as well as Women in each category,

3. The contention of the petitioners is that Article 243-D of the Constitution of India provides for reservation of seats in Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population. Similarly, it enables reservation to BCC and Women. The Constitutional mandate has been carried forward under Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short referred to as ‘Act of 1961’). Section 42 of the Act provides for reservation of seats of SC and ST in proportion to their population. It enables 27% reservation for BCC with provision of 50% reservation of all seats in such category for women. The reservation is to be applied by rotation. State Election Commission is empowered to issue guidelines for holding of the elections to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis in accordance with the reservations provided for the respective categories.

4. Petitioners further contend that Supreme Court of India in the matter of K. Krishnamurthy [(2010) 7 SCC 202] considered validity of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1961 and declared it unconstitutional to the extent of providing for 27% reservation to BCC. The issue has been reconsidered by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.841 of 2021 and SLP No.19756 of 2021. It is observed that unless the empirical data regarding BCC is collected, the reservation to BCC cannot be provisioned. In pursuance of such observations of the Supreme Court, the State of Maharashtra appointed a dedicated Commission (Banthia Commission) to study the status of BCC within the State. The report submitted by dedicated commission recommends reservation to BCC up to 27% so that total reservation (including reservation for SC & ST) does not exceed 50% of the total number of seats available. The Supreme Court permitted the State Election Commission to hold the elections of Panchayats in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission vide order dated 22.7.2022. The State Election Commission issued orders for holding the elections in deference to the directions given by the Supreme Court.

5. The State Government published impugned notification dated 30.9.2022 declaring number of seats of President of Zilla Parishad throughout the State to be reserved for each of the category i.e. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, BCC and women. According to the petitioners the reservation so fixed under impugned Notification violates directions of the Supreme Court as well as the statutory provisions. The contention of the petitioners is that, there are total 34 Zilla Parishads within the State of Maharashtra. Tot