ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the Notification No. 05 of 2019 dated 04.09.2019 vide which final Block-wise list providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women for District Reasi, was notified.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide Notice No. 01 of 2019 dated 11.07.2019, the Director, Rural Development Department (for short ‘the Director’) published a draft proposal for reservation for Block Development Council constituencies in every block of Jammu Division. Objections/response was invited from general public within seven days. In the draft proposal, Mahore Constituency was reserved for women. Representation was filed, District Panchayat Officer, Reasi recommended to the Director vide letter dated July 20, 2019 that the Block Mahore seat should be kept reserved for women without any change. Thereafter fresh public notice No. 02 of 2019 was issued on 31.07.2019 inviting objections for draft proposal specifying reservation of various seats of the Block Development Councils. Objections were invited within seven days. However, the time was later on extended up to 19.08.2019, vide public notice dated 10.08.2019. The petitioner filed objections on 16.08.2019. Thereafter, the final list was notified vide Notification No. 05 of 2009 dated 04.09.2019 reserving the Mahore seat for ST Women.

3. Impugning the aforesaid notification, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 27(3) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) provides that there has to be direct election whereas Section 41 thereof talks of limited electorates. Meaning thereby indirect elections. Hence, the entire scheme is bad. It is further submitted that Section 27(3) of the Act provides that the powers are to be exercised by a Prescribed Authority. It has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act to mean the authority appointed by the Government by way of notification. In the absence of any notification exercise of power by the Director is totally illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner does not challenge reservation of number of seats provided for different categories. Out of 12 constituencies in District Reasi, 4 have been kept in Open Category, 3 have been reserved for Women, 4 have been kept for Scheduled Tribe category, out of which one has been reserved for Women and one for SC Category. However, it was submitted that for reservation of seats for the women proper procedure has been prescribed by reserving seats at Serial Numbers 1,4,7,10…. However for Scheduled Tribes, there is no such system. At random seat at serial No. 7, which is the constituency in dispute, has been reserved for Scheduled Tribes. If the serial numbers in the list are seen, the seats at serial Nos. 3, 5, 7 & 12 have been reserved for Schedule Tribes, which does not make any sense. It smacks of arbitrariness in exercise of power.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the fact that State had issued public notice twice inviting objections shows that its intention was to be fair and give opportunity to all the stakeholders. She further submitted that Section 27(3) of the Act gives complete power to the Prescribed Authority to reserve the seats. The same has to be in proportion to the population in that District. As far as reservation for women is concerned, not less than 1/3rd of the total number are to be reserved. There are 12 constituencies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any issue regarding number of seats reserved for each category. The same is as per the population data. As far as reservation of seats is concerned, it was submitted that election for Block Development Council are being held for the first time in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As far as women are concerned, the system has be