IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 16 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 16 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 16 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2025 In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 16 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 3 of 2025 In R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 16 of 2025 ==========================================================

PATHUJI CHHAGAJI THAKOR Versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

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

Appearance:

HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR. VINAY VISHEN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6 MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 27/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard Mr. Harsh K. Raval for the applicant and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing for the State – respondents, we may note that in the present petition the validity of the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2023, Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2023 and all subsequent Amendments made in the Rules framed thereunder are challenged being ultravirus to the Constitution of India, only the ground is that the report of the Dedicated Ccommission for Reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the Local Bodies of the Gujarat, which was constituted to implement the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) and Others V/s. Union of India and another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 202, has been discarded by the State Government without any reasons and the amendments brought by way of Gujarat Act No. 17 of 2023 are contrary to the said decision of the Apex Court.

2. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendments are in the teeth of the decision of the Apex Court and the allocation of reserved seats for the backward Classes uniformly without there being a proper identification of the backward Communities at the local level, being in contravention of the constitutional provision under Article 243D (6) and 243T(6)

of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained.

3. On the issue raised in the present petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation about the dissolution of the previous Dedicated Commission, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State – respondents that a Dedicated Commission has been constituted by the Government Resolution dated 04.09.2025 issued by the Social Justice and Welfare Department, with the appointment of a retired judge of the High Court. The proceedings of the Commission are underway, which itself shows that the State has undertaken steps to comply with the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Curt in case of K. Krishna Murthy (supra).

4. With regard to the report of the Dedicated Commission, previously constituted a categorical stand has been taken that certain recommendations of the said commission had resulted in the overbreadth in the quantum of reservation for OBCs, which was discussed in the meeting of Cabinet Sub-Committee, which was also the moot question before the Apex Court in the case of K. Krishna Murthy (supra). The Cabinet Sub-Committee, therefore, recommended 27% reservation in place of 10% reservation, in local bodies of the State and the State Legislature had passed the Amendment of Act of 2023 providing for the same. HOwever, in compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court, another Dedicated Commission constituted by the State Government which is seized with the matter.

5. Taking note of the above, at the interim stage, we do not find any reason to