S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. Although these cases have been heard on different dates and judgments/orders were kept reserved on different dates i.e., 8th, 9th and 10th August, 2005, since they relate to reservation of the offices and seats of Chairpersons of Panchayats at all levels, all of them are being disposed of by this common judgment. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of "The Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996" (Act 40 of 1996) hereinafter to be referred as PESA Act, 1996, certain provisions of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and Scheduled Areas (States of Bihar, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) Order, 1977 have been challenged by the petitioners.

Prayer of the petitioners :

2. Petitioner Dhananjay Mahto of CWJC No. 3591 of 1997 (R) and petitioner Ganga Prasad Singh and others of WP (PIL) No. 3877 of 2002 have challenged the 2nd provision to Clause (g) of Section 4 of PESA Act, 1996, whereby and whereunder, all seats of Chairpersons of Panchayats at all level in the scheduled areas have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.

3. Petitioner Janardan Manki of WP (PIL) No. 1633 of 2002 has challenged the validity of Section 21(A)(1)(i), Section 22(D), Section 40(A)(1) and Section 55(A)(1) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, whereby and whereunder, all the offices and seats of Chairpersons at all levels in non-scheduled areas have been unreserved, treating the offices and seats of Chairperson as solitary seat.

4. Petitioner Raja Ram Mahto of WP (PIL) No. 747 of 2001 and petitioner Rakesh Kumar of WP (PIL) No. 2728 of 2002 while challenged Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, in general, at the time of argument, their counsel have confined their arguments in regard to validity of reservation up to 80 percent of the seats at Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishad level and have also questioned the validity of Sub-clause (6) to Article 243 of the Constitution of India, alleging it to be ultra vires to the Constitution.

5. In other writ petitions, petitioner Jharkhand Jamaitul Mominim of WP(C) No. 2148 of 2001, petitioners Shiv Kumar Sharma and others of WP (PIL) No. 1585 of 2002, petitioner Dharmendra Mahto of WP (C) No. 2097 of 2003 while challenged Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, as amended from time to time, in general, at the time of argument, their counsel have confined their argument by challenging Section 17(b), 21(B), 36(B), 40(B) and 55(B) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001.

6. Petitioners Amar Kumar Mahto and Ors. of WP (PIL) No. 849 of 2002 have also prayed for a direction of the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid Section 17(B), Section 21(B), Section 36(B) Section 40(B), Section 51(B) and Section 55(B) of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and to declare them ultra vires.

7. Petitioner Devendra Nath Champia of WP(C) No. 5939 of 2001 while challenged Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, have taken main plea that Panchayat election can not take place in scheduled areas, such as, Kolhan areas within the district of Singhbhum West.

8. While similar challenge has been made by petitioner Adivasi Aatu Baisi Self Governance Committee of WP (PIL) No. 2993 of 2002 and petitioner Basudeo Besra of WP (PIL) No. 5740 of 2003, prayer has also been made for a declaration that the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, as amended from time to time, is not applicable and is inoperative in the scheduled areas of Santhal Parganas and Chhotanagpur Divisions, alleging it to be ultra vires to Articles 243-M, 244(1) and 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

9. Petitioner Subhash Chandra Pradhan of WP (PIL) No. 2133 of 2002 while challenged Scheduled Areas (States of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and orissa) Order, 1997, has also prayed to direct the respondents to re-demarcate various Panchayat Areas, situated within the district of West Singhbhum, and to declare them as non-scheduled areas, taking into consideration the geographical status, classification and other factors, including the population o