IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 28 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 1697 of 2025 JAYESH GURNANI AND OTHERS Versus MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vibhor Khandelwal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioners have filed the present review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 21.07.2025, whereby the Writ Appeal No.123/2022 has been allowed, and the order passed by the Writ Court dated 10.01.2022 in W.P. No.12517/2021 has been set aside. The petitioner filed the writ petition assailing the Gazette notification dated 06.11.2020, whereby the Wards of all Municipal Corporations within the State of Madhya Pradesh were reserved.

2. According to the petitioners, the reservation ought to have been done by way of rotation because the Wards earlier reserved for the SC/ST categories have again been reserved for the same categories. The writ petition came to be allowed with liberty to the respondents No.2 and 3 to formulate policy for reservation by way of rotation as provided under Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. The Writ Appeal was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. But in the impugned order, in Para 1, in place of "State of Madhya Pradesh", the words "M.P. State Election Commission" have been typed. It is further pointed out that in Para 22, Section 11(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1956 has been incorrectly reproduced, which has been replaced by way of amendment, Subsection 3 and 4, vide M.P. Act No. 16 of 2007. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel submits that only Section 11 was incorrectly quoted, but a discussion has been conducted on the correct provision of Section 11.

3 . So far, the aforesaid two submissions by the petitioners are concerned, there are typographical errors in the impugned order. Hence, the same are liable to be corrected. Therefore, the words "M.P. State Election Commission" are hereby replaced by "State of Madhya Pradesh", and Sub Rules 3 and 4 of Section 11 of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1956 are read as under:

"(3) [As nearly as possible fifty percent] of the total number of seats reserved under sub-sections (1) and (2), shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes, as the case may be.

(4) [As nearly as possible fifty percent] (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes), of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Municipal Corporation shall be reserved for women and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in a Municipal Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed."

4. So far the other grounds raised in the review petition are concerned, they had already been considered by this Division Bench in detail.

5. It is further submitted by Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the findings recorded in Para 29 of the impugned order are contrary to Section 5(43-a) of the Municipal Corporation Act, which defines the population. According to Shri Khandelwar, even in the next election, the population is not going to be changed because the word "population" as defined under Section 5(43-a) of the Act of 1956 means the population as ascertained at the preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published, i.e., Census-2011.

6. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of Sections 10 and 11 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Therefore, there has to be a reservation of the Wards and seats on the basis of the population of SC/ST categories in the municipal area. The specific plea raised by the petitioner about the reservation of a sea