Point of Law: The quantum of reservation ought to be local bodies specific and be so provisioned to ensure that it does not exceed the quantitative limit of 50 per cent (aggregate) of vertical reservation of seats for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together. The offending provision of the Act of 1961 was quashed to the extent it provided reservation of seats for OBC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

2. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned government order dated 11.02.2021 (contained in Annexure No. 1).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue fresh guidelines in accordance with the procedure provided under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Reservation and Allotment of Seats and Offices) Rules, 1994 and the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Reservation and allotment of seats and offices) Rules, 1994.

(c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed and finalize the reservation of seats of the gram panchayats, Kshetra Panchayats or Zila Panchayat in pursuance to the impugned government order dated 11.02.2021.

(d) Award costs in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties.

(e) Pass such further or other orders as may be considered expedient in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that provisions for reservations in the aforesaid elections are to be determined as per the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Reservation and Allotment of Seats and Offices) Rules, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1994] with Rule 4 providing allotment of seats for reservation on rotational basis. It has been submitted that pursuant to amendment in Article 243D of Constitution of India, the aforesaid Rules were notified and for the purposes of allotment of seats as per reservation under Rule 4 of Rules of 1994, the base year was taken as 1995. It is submitted that subsequent elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 were held in accordance with the aforesaid Rules of 1994.

4. Learned counsel has thereafter drawn attention to the Government Order dated 16.09.2015 in which it has been indicated that due to substantial demographic changes in the Districts of the State in the Gram Panchayat and Khetra Panchayat territories in view of the census of 2001 and 2011, it is no longer conducive to have 1995 as the base year for purposes of applying reservation as per Rule 4 of Rules of 1994. As such, the base year in view of the changed demographic situation was required to be taken as 2015.

5. It is submitted that vide impugned order and ignoring the Government Order dated 16.09.2015, the opposite parties are proceeding to reserve the seats in terms of Rule 4 of Rules of 1994 by taking 1995 as the base year instead of 2015. It is further submitted that Government Order dated 16.09.2015 is still in existence and the previous elections held in the year 2015 were also in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order.

6. It is further submitted that even otherwise in view of the changed demographic situation as noticed by the State Government itself in the Government Order dated 16.09.2015, it does not stand to reason that the base year for purposes of reserving seats in terms of Rule 4 of Rules of 1994 should be taken as 1995.

7. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that even otherwise the provisions for reservation as contemplated by the impugned Government Order would result in more than 60 per cent seats in a district being reserved, which would be violative of various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and that it would also violate the maximum cap fixed with respect to reservation of Backward Class of 27 per cent.

8. With regard to aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that similarly worded provisions in Clause 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchyat Samitis Act, 1961 was held to be non e