IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4101 of 2026 ==========================================================

BARIA SHANTILAL BIJALBHAI Versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AISHVARYA(8018) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 01/04/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the decision of the authorities allotting the reservation to of the election of the members of the District Panchayat, Panchmahal.

2. It is not in dispute that as required under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Delimitation of Electoral Divisions) Rules, 2010, the State Election Commission before finalizing the proposed delimitation of Electoral Divisions of Taluka and District Panchayats and allocation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women did invite suggestions from the general public and also consulted the political parties recognized under the Representation of People Act.

3. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission points out that the petitioner however did not choose to give any suggestions when the draft notification was published on 2.3.2026 and hence, he would be precluded from challenging the final notification issued on

12.3.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that though in earlier draft notifications 24.2.2026, in which for the village of Angadiya, to which the petitioner has been concerned, the seat had been reserved for SEBC woman, but in the subsequent draft notification dated 2.3.2026, it was changed to Scheduled Tribe woman. He submitted that since the earlier notification provided for reservation for SEBC (women), he did not raise any queries. He, however, submitted that in response to the notification dated 2.3.2026, several others had given representations submitting certain suggestions and that would suffice to confer locus standi to him to challenge the final notification.

5. This argument would, therefore, indicate that the petitioner herein did not have any qualms regarding the draft notification dated 2.3.2026 and was satisfied about the reservation being allocated to the Scheduled Tribe woman.

6. In our view, since the petitioner did not raise any objection or submitted any suggestions, he is precluded from challenging the final notification issued thereafter, whereby reservation allotted to the Scheduled Tribe woman has been confirmed. We therefore, DISMISS the writ petition.

Sd/-

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

Sd/-

(J. L. ODEDRA, J)

OMKAR