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