Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
HITESHBHAI NARANBHAI VEKARIYA – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT – RESPONDENT
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15959 of 2021, 16385 of 2021,16770 of 2021 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17533 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 243A, 243B, 243C and 243D, 243-O, 334 and 226 - Sections 51(2)(a), 274 read with sub-section (3) of 51 clause (a) of sub-section (2) of 51, (2) of section 263, 51(2)(a), 9(4),9(5), 13 and 15 – Gujarat Village Panchayat Elections of Sarpanch (Manner of Allotment of Reserved Seats by Rotation) Rules, 1994 - Rules 10, 6, 13 and 4 - Seeking quash and setting aside notification - Allot seat of Sarpanch of Village Bandra for Woman - Alleged that holding of election without maintaining allotment as per the statutory mandate same would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Alleged that if notification permitted to be continued - Perpetuating illegality and in breach of principles of natural justice – Held, Case of election to village panchayat, a voter has to give two votes, one for the member and another for Sarpanch, that is to say that election of Sarpanch of every village panchayat is by direct election - Petitions is about reservation and rotation of seats for election of Sarpanch and not panchayat ratio laid down by Court in the case - Allotment made by the authorities under impugned notification at Annexure-A does not suffer from any legal infirmity which requires interference by this Court - Court finds that 1994 Rules are so meticulous in nature and have elements of arithmetic and mathematics and the State Government is duty bound to adhere to it and such adherence is found in the impugned notification - Even at cost of repetition - State Government has correctly followed the relevant Rules i.e. Rule 5 to 8 read with Rules 10 and 13 of 1994 Rules - State Government and its authorities ought to have given reply to the applications filed by petitioners and appraise them about data as regards population of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and SEBC and even the rotation charts - Court firmly believe that if that exercise would have been undertaken - Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
R.M.CHHAYA, J.
1. Issue involved in this batch of petitions is identical. The contentions raised in the petitions are also identical and hence, all the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. The matters relate to elections of Sarpanch in gram panchayats, situated in Gondal Taluka, Rajkot District.
2. In Special Civil Application no.16770/21, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notification dated 24.9.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-A in Village Nagadka and has further prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to allot the seat of Sarpanch of Village Nagadka for Scheduled Tribe category in the elections of the village panchayat.
3. In Special Civil Application no.15959 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notification dated 24.9.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-A in Village Sultanpur and has further prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to allot the seat of Sarpanch of Village Sultanpur for General category in the elections of the village panchayat.
4. In Special Civil Application no.16385/21, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notification dated 24.9.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-A in Village Bandra and has further prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to allot the seat of Sarpanch of Village Bandra for Woman General category in the elections of the village panchayat.
5. In Special Civil Application no.17533/21, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notification dated 24.9.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 at Annexure-A in Village Bhunava and has further prayed that the respondent no.3 be directed to allot the seat of Sarpanch of Village Bhunava for Scheduled Tribe category in the elections of the village panchayat.
6. As mentioned hereinabove, in this batch of petitions, the contentions raised are common and the grounds as raised in Special Civil Application no.15959 of 2021 are made basis of this judgment and order, which are considered as common grounds.
7. Relying upon Rule 10 of the Gujarat Village Panchayat Elections of Sarpanch (Manner of Allotment of Reserved Seats by Rotation) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1994 Rules” for the sake of brevity), it is contended that the notification dated 24.9.2021 is issued without considering the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) and the 1994 Rules and the same is contrary. It is further contended that the same is issued without application of mind on the part of the respondent no.3 and the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is further contended that the Collector has got the powers of rotation of the seats and has to scrupulously follow the Rules, which have not been followed and therefore, the exercise undertaken by the respondent no.3 is arbitrary and contrary of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Referring to Rule 10 of the 1994 Rules, it is contended that as per the statutory Rules, the seats are to be allotted and not to be repeated which has not been followed by the authority. It is further contended that Rule 10 of the 1994 Rules casts duty upon respondent no.3 to allot the seats in rotation and the seats must start from item 1 to the last and till entire list is exhausted and the same cannot be repeated. It is alleged that as the same is not carried out, notification at Annexure-A is in breach of the provisions of t
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
