1 WP3252-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 3252/2022

(KUNAL PRAKASH IMALE VERSUS STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, MUMBAI & OTHERS)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order

and Registrar's orders.

Shri S. Zia Qazi counsel for the petitioner.

Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the R-1.

Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-2.

Shri M.I. Dhatrak, counsel for the R-3.

Shri K.J. Tople, counsel for the R-4.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE

, JJ.

D ATE

: JULY 01

,

202

2 .

Heard.

2.

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the Final Ward Formation

Plan of Kamptee Municipal Council for the General Elections-2022 and especially

with regard to Ward No.2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent

no.1-State Election Commission, the Municipal Councils wherein elections were

due were required to undertake the exercise of Ward formation. According to

the Draft Ward Formation Plan pertaining to the respondent no.3-Kamptee

Municipal Council, seventeen Wards were formed with each Ward being entitled

to be represented by two Councilors. Insofar as Ward No.2 is concerned, total

population as per the Census of the Year-2011 was shown to be 4734 with the

population of Scheduled Castes voters to be 578 and the population of

Scheduled Tribes voters to be 29. An objection raised to the said Draft Ward

Formation Plan pertaining to Ward No.2 by the respondent no.4 on 16.03.2022

was not recommended by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. The

grievance of the petitioner is that despite such recommendation, the Draft Ward

Formation Plan with regard to Ward no.2 was modified and as a result the

population for Ward No.2 was increased to 5410 and voters from Scheduled

Castes category were shown to be 579. While finalizing the Wards, Gat nos.52

and 53 were added in the area of Ward no.2 after removing the same from Ward

no.6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if the Draft Ward Formation Plan

2 WP3252-22.odt

would not have been modified, Ward no.2 would have been liable to be reserved

for the candidates from the Scheduled Castes category as that Ward would have

been at Serial Number 10 from amongst the seventeen Wards. However, under

the garb of Final Ward Formation Plan, Ward no.2 is now placed at Serial

Number 11 and thus it was not liable to be reserved for the candidates from the

Scheduled Castes category. In other words, despite there being an increase in

the population of Ward no.2 from 4734 to 5410, the population of voters from

the Scheduled Castes category was increased only by one. Being aggrieved by

such modification of Wards, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3.

Shri S. Zia Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there

was no justification on the part of the Collector to have modified Ward no.2 from

the Draft Ward Formation Plan as indicated. The objection raised by the

respondent no.4 did not receive the recommendation of the Chief Officer but

despite that during the stage of Final Ward Formation, Ward no.2 was modified.

The population initially shown was 4734 and despite increasing the same to

5410 there was increase in the number of Scheduled Castes voters only by one.

It was urged that such modification was undertaken with a view to deprive Ward

no.2 from being reserved. There was no legal justification for the Collector to

have modified Ward no.2. Inviting attention to a document purported to be

signed by Head of the Election Department of the Municipal Council, it was

submitted that at the stage of Final Ward Formation the population of voters was

shown as 5410 while in the said document that figure