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
GUJARAT VILLAGE PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS OF SARPANCH (MANNER OF ALLOTMENT OF RESERVED SEATS BY ROTATION) RULES, 1994 - RULES 4 TO 10 AND 13 - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION OF SARPANCH - ROTATION OF RESERVED SEATS - MANNER OF ALLOTMENT - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 243B, 243C, 243D AND 243O - GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT, 1993 - SECTION 51 - ELECTION OF SARPANCH - ROTATION OF RESERVED SEATS - MANNER OF ALLOTMENT - RULES 4 TO 10 AND 13 OF THE 1994 RULES - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION OF SARPANCH - ROTATION OF RESERVED SEATS - MANNER OF ALLOTMENT - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 243B, 243C, 243D AND 243O - GUJARAT PANCHAYATS ACT, 1993 - SECTION 51.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notification issued by the respondent authorities reserving the seats for the post of Sarpanch in various village panchayats in Gondal Taluka, Rajkot District. The petitioners contended that the notification was issued without considering the provisions of the Gujarat Village Panchayat Elections of Sarpanch (Manner of Allotment of Reserved Seats by Rotation) Rules, 1994 (the 1994 Rules) and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act) and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also contended that the Collector had the powers of rotation of the seats and had to scrupulously follow the Rules, which had not been followed, and therefore, the exercise undertaken by the respondent was arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further contended that Rule 10 of the 1994 Rules casts a duty upon the respondent to allot the seats in rotation and the seats must start from item 1 to the last and till the entire list is exhausted and the same cannot be repeated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government had scrupulously followed the relevant Rules i.e. Rule 5 to 8 read with Rules 10 and 13 of the 1994 Rules and had provided for appropriate rotation for the post of Sarpanch. The Court further held that the notification for election had already been published and the election process had started and therefore, on that ground also, no interference was called for.
Issues: Whether the notification issued by the respondent authorities reserving the seats for the post of Sarpanch in various village panchayats was issued without considering the provisions of the Gujarat Village Panchayat Elections of Sarpanch (Manner of Allotment of Reserved Seats by Rotation) Rules, 1994 (the 1994 Rules) and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (the Act) and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government had obeyed the constitutional mandate, the provisions of Sections 51(2)(a) and 51(3) of the Act as well as Rules 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 of the 1994 Rules. The allotment made by the authorities under the impugned notification dated 24.9.2021 at Annexure-A does not suffer from any legal infirmity which requires interference by this Court. This Court finds that the 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.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed on merits.
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
