IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the reservation for Sarpanchas in local bodies must adhere to the statutory limit of 50% as per the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and that excess reservations are unlawful.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with regard to reservation in the Offices of Sarpanchas being provided in a manner that exceeds the limit permitted under the Statute and the law in that regard.

3. In the elections for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda that were held in September-2018 the petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch. His term is to expire on the completion of tenure of five years. On 5/3/2020 the Rural Development Department published Notification in exercise of powers under Rule 2A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Elections Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964). The reservation prescribed for the offices of Sarpanchas in the entire State of Maharashtra was with regard to 24972 Gram Panchayats. Insofar as Nagpur District is concerned, the total number of Gram Panchayats was shown to be 768. Of the said 768 Gram Panchayats, 437 posts of Sarpanch were shown to be reserved while 331 posts were shown for the 'Open' category. Acting on the aforesaid Notification, the Collector on 25/11/2020 issued a Notification under Rule 2A(3) and (4) of the Rules of 1964 indicating reservation in the offices of Sarpanchas in various Tahsils in the District of Nagpur based on census of 2011 for the period from 2020 to 2025. As stated above, out of 768 posts of 'Sarpanch' 437 posts were shown to be reserved for various categories of Backward Classes while 331 posts were for the Open category. After the present writ petition was filed on 19/7/2023 and reply of the State authorities including the State Election Commission was awaited, the State Election Commission on 3/10/2023 issued an order notifying the elections at various Gram Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra. As per the said order, the notice of the Gram Panchayat elections was published by the Tahsildar on 6/10/2023. This includes 365 Gram Panchayats in the District of Nagpur including Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 3/10/2023 passed by the State Election Commission.

4. Shri A.A.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959) and especially Ss. 10, 11 and 30 thereof. As per the provisions of Sec. 30(4)(a), it was submitted that the number of offices of Sarpanchas to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was required to be in the same proportion as the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State. Under Sec. 30(4)(b) insofar as the reservation for the category Backward Class of citizens in the offices of Sarpanchas were concerned, the same ought to be 27% of the total number of such offices in the panchayats and the total reservation was limited to 50% of the total seats in the concerned District. It was thus submitted that since the reservation of the offices of Sarpanchas exceeded 50% in view of the Notification dtd. 5/3/2020 insofar as the entire State was concerned and the Notification dtd. 25/11/2020 insofar as the Nagpur District was concerned, it was clear that this reservation in Nagpur District was contrary to Sec. 30(4)(b) of the Act of 1959. Inviting attention to the amendment to Sec. 30(4)(b) of the Act of 1959 that came into effect on 23/9/2021 and the Statement of Object and Reasons for introducing the Bill in that regard, it was submitted that by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2021) 7 SCC 73], the Legislature was conscious of the law laid down in the said decision and thus amended the said provision. In that context, the Notifications dtd. 5/3/2020 and 25/11/2020 were contrary to the provisions of Sec. 30(4)(b) of the