Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
P. Baskar – Respondent
W.A. No. 2457 of 2021 & C.M.P. Nos. 15777 & 15778 of 2021
Decided on : 24-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 243-O and 243(ZG) - Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995 - Sole intention to allot post of President to Schedule Tribe - Allotment of Kolathur Panchayat President post to ST General - Petitioner that there were wrong particulars provided in respect of Census of Schedule Caste (SC) / Schedule Tribe (ST) and voters, residing in Panchayat, with sole intention to allot post of President to Schedule Tribe - Population of ST has been wrongly shown as 270 with 175 voters, whereas population of SC was indicated as 1027 with 1041 voters, by suppressing actual population of SC - Committee Report of the Respondents 2 and 3 as well as earlier orders of this Court were at all considered, while issuing impugned Government - Earmarking Kolathur Village Panchayat for ST General, on the basis of the Census of year - Aggrieved by same, Writ Petitioner approached this Court – Held, Decision on which reliance is placed - There is always peril in treating words of speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington vs. British Railways Board Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases - When there is a mala fide exercise of power, then there is no impediment for any Court to interfere to curb such exercise, so as to ensure that the interest of justice is met and render justice - Reliance on provision of Article 243 (ZG) of the Constitution of India has no relevancy to the case on hand, as validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies has not been called in question in this case - Argument put forth by learned Advocate General that since there is no census available after 2011, the Government has no other option, but to arrive at a population figure and reservation of post only based upon the census of the year 2011, cannot be accepted, especially when the said submission was negatived by this Court in earlier order of this Court - Argument appears to be that since the Government do not have the correct list of voters of the locality – Court are in era of tech-saavy and it is easy for any Government to conduct survey population within a short span of time, if they are really interested in it - Writ Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2021 made in W.M.P.No.20619 of 2021 in W.P.No.19308 of 2021.)
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
1. This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the interim order dated 15.09.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No.20619 of 2021 in W.P.No.19308 of 2021, in and by which, the operation of G.O.Ms.No.106, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1) Department dated 03.09.2021, relating to allotment of Kolathur Panchayat President post to ST General, has been stayed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the Writ Petition as “Writ Petitioner and the Government” in this order.
Brief Facts in nutshell:
3. It was averred by the Writ Petitioner that there were wrong particulars provided in respect of Census of Schedule Caste (SC) / Schedule Tribe (ST) and voters, residing in Kolathur Panchayat, with the sole intention to allot the post of President to Schedule Tribe. The population of ST has been wrongly shown as 270 with 175 voters, whereas the population of SC was indicated as 1027 with 1041 voters, by suppressing the actual population of SC.
3.1. According to the Writ Petitioner, the Committee Report of the Respondents 2 and 3 as well as the earlier orders of this Court dated 08.11.2019 were at all considered, while issuing the impugned Government Order dated 03.09.2021, earmarking the Kolathur Village Panchayat for ST General, on the basis of the Census of the year 2011. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioner approached this Court, in which, stay has been granted by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the Government submitted that in the Sriperumbudur Constituency, there are 58 Panchayats and one such Panchayat is Kolathur Panchayat. After commencement of election process, no petition filed before Courts in the interregnum period can be entertained and it can be done only after the election is over. He further submitted that Articles 243-O and 243(ZG) of the Constitution of India are a bar for the interference by the Court in respect of electoral matters, pertaining to Municipalities and Panchayats and it cannot be challenged in this Court. The total population of the Panchayat Union as per 2011 Census was 115515 with the ST residents of 1195 and therefore, the Panchayat post has been reserved for ST. He also submitted that there is no malice or malafide established against the Government, warranting interference by this Court.
4.1. Learned Advocate General has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of A.Karuppanan and others vs. The State, reported in MANU/TN/6556/2019, to point out that in the absence of any malafide, Courts cannot interfere with the notification. He also drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others, reported in (1967) 1 SCR 400, to strengthen his case against the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner contended that as per the Committee Report dated 29.07.2016 constituted by the 3rd Respondent, the total number of ST people was only 59, out of whom, some of the members referred to have not been residing in the place, apart from the fact that they do not belong to ST community. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:
1) 75. 2) 76. 3) 78. 4) 79. 5) 81. 6) 84. 7) 85. 8) 86. 9) 87. 10) 88. 11) 89. 12) 90. 13) 95. 14) 96. 15) 210. 16) 322. 17) 323. 18) 324. 19) 325. 20) 326. 21) 335. 22) 679. 23) 680. 24) 681. 25) 682. 26) 684. 27) 685. 28) 686. 29) 691. 30) 207. 31) 708. 32) 710. 33) 711. 34) 712. 35) 713. 36) 714. 37) 719. 38) 720. 39) 721. 40) 722. 41) 723. 42) 724. 43) 725. 44) 729. 45) 730. 46) 731. 47) 732. 48) 733. 49) 735. 50) 737. 51) 738. 52) 739. 53) 744. 54) 745. 56) 758. 57) 759. 58) 762. 59) 766
“TAMIL”
1) 66. 2) 67. 3)
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
