SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 98969

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
R.Parthiban – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP/25819/2021



Reservation in favour of women in municipal corporations is to be provided on the total seats of the corporation and not by dividing it into zones.

Headnote:

RESERVATION - CHENNAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - NOTIFICATION - QUASHING - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - ARTICLE 243-R, 243-S, 243-T - CHENNAI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1919 - SECTION 5 - TAMIL NADU TOWN PANCHAYATS, THIRD GRADE MUNICIPALITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND CORPORATIONS (DELIMITATION OF WARDS OR DIVISIONS AND RESERVATION) RULES, 1996 - RULE 4(3) - PROVISO - VALIDITY - HELD, PROVISO TO RULE 4(3) OF THE RULES OF 1996, AS AMENDED BY THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS STRUCK DOWN.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the Gazette Notification dated 16.09.2016 issued by the second respondent, which added a proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996. The proviso provided that, in respect of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation, zone shall be the unit for the purposes of determining the reservation stipulated in sub-rule (3).

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1996, as amended by the impugned notification, is unconstitutional and is struck down. The Court held that the reservation is to be provided on the total seats of the municipality and not by dividing it into zones. The Court also held that the proviso offends the constitutional and statutory provisions, as it provides for reservation on the basis of the seats in each zone, which is not permissible under the Constitution or the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

Issues: Whether the proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996, as amended by the impugned notification, is constitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1996, as amended by the impugned notification, is unconstitutional and is struck down. The Court held that the reservation is to be provided on the total seats of the municipality and not by dividing it into zones. The Court also held that the proviso offends the constitutional and statutory provisions, as it provides for reservation on the basis of the seats in each zone, which is not permissible under the Constitution or the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

Final Decision: The Court held that the proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1996, as amended by the impugned notification, is unconstitutional and is struck down. The Court directed the respondents to provide reservation as per Article 243-T of the Constitution read with Section 5 of the Act of 1919 and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.NO.25819 OF 2021

AND

W.M.P.NOS.27291 TO 27293 OF 2021

R.Parthiban

.. Petitioner

vs

1. The Chief Secretary,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai 600 009.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary

to Government, Municipal Administration

and Water Supply Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

3. The State Election Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu State Election Commission,

No.208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.

4. The Commissioner,

Greater Chennai Corporation,

Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

5. The District Collector,

Chennai Collectorate, No.62,

Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor, Beach Road,

George Town, Chennai 600 001.

6. The Chief Electoral Officer and

Principal Secretary to Government,

Public (Election) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai 600 009.

.. Respondents

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling

for the records pertaining to Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.

218 dated 16.9.2016 passed in G. O. Ms. No. 126 Municipal

Administration and Water Supply (Election) issued by the 2nd

respondent and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and non-est

in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to

set-right the discrimination in allocating 50 % quota to men in

the Chennai City Municipal Corporation as notified in the Tamil

Nadu Government Gazette No. 228 dated 24.5.2019 and rectify the

defect and re-allocate the correct 50 percent quota of wards to

the women and men as per the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws

(Amendment) Act 2016 as published in Tamil Nadu Government

Gazette Notification No.56, dated 27.02.2016 and publish the

same prior to call for Election to the Chennai City Municipal

Corporation.

For the Petitioner

:

Mr.S.Prabhakaran

Senior Counsel

for Mr.Raheemuddeen

For the Respondents

:

Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram

Advocate General

assisted by

Mr.P.Muthukumar - SGP

for RR 1, 2, 5 and 6

:

Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok for R-4

:

Mr.S.Sivashanmugam for R-3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by

the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Gazette

Notification dated 16.09.2016 published by the second respondent

to provide reservation of the seat in each zone treating it as

unit for the Chennai City Municipal Corporation. The proviso

was added under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats,

Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations

(Delimitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996.

2. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the Constitution of India provides

for reservation of seats in the election of the Municipal

Corporations as well as Municipalities. It has to be applied on

the total seats of the Corporations/Municipalities. It cannot be

with bifurcation of seats at the level of zone treating it as an

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

unit. Referring to the amendment made under Rule 4(3) to the

Rules of 1996, learned senior counsel submits that while the

respondents issued a notification to provide reservation of not

less than 50% of the seats of the Corporations/Municipalities to

women. The reservation could not have been provided by dividing

corporation in zones. The petitioner is not challenging the

reservation to the women, not less than 50% of the seats as is

otherwise permissible as per the constitutional provision.

However, by virtue of the notification under challenge, the

respondents are determining the reservation in favour of the

women, based on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top