Bombay High Court
Raghuvendra Manohar Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Y. G. Khobragade
1 WP / 9425 /2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9425 OF 2022
Raghuvendra Manohar Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occupation : Social Worker /
Member of Dhule Zilla Parishad, Dhule,
R/o. Nagaon, Taluka and District Dhule .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Planning Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
2] The District Collector, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule
3] The District Planning Committee,
Through District Planning Officer,
Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule
4] The District Planning Committee,
Through District Planning Committee
Returning Officer, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule .. RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for petitoner : Mr. D.S. Bagul
GP for the respondents : Mr. D.R. Kale
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13 DECEMBER 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 14 DECEMBER 2022
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned
Government Pleader waives service for the respondents. At the joint
request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of
admission.
2 WP / 9425 /2022
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that though the
election for filling up the seats in the District Planning Committee of
Dhule district had commenced under the Maharashtra District Planning
Committees (Constitution and functions) Act, 1998 (Act of 1998)
pursuant to the directions of this Court in writ petition no. 2452 of 2022
by the order dated 04-04-2022 (Sangram Govindrao Patil and another
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) whereby it had directed the
respondents to complete the entire process of election within a period
of eight weeks and though the election programme was modified on
08-08-2022, by the impugned communication dated 08-09-2022, the
respondent no. 1 - State has informed the respondent no. 2 - Collector
and the Secretary in District Planning Committee to stop the process of
election until further orders.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bagul would submit that the election
programme for filling up 23 seats was declared. Out of that after the
date of withdrawal, there was no contest in respect of 22 seats and
only one seat had remained to be elected. At that stage, at the
instance of a local member of the legislative assembly, the impugned
communication was issued postponing the election until further orders.
He would submit that the impugned order does not indicate
the reasons which had prompted the State Government to direct the
respondent no. 2 - Collector to stay the further progress of the election.
3 WP / 9425 /2022
He would submit that the State Government does not have any powers
to postpone the elections. Even the direction is clearly in violation of
the trite principles laid down time and again by the Supreme Court to
the effect that the election process cannot be stalled.
He would submit that the District Planning Committees are
constituted under Article 243 ZD of the Constitution of India. The term
of the office of the elected members of the District Planning Committee
is co-terminus with their term in respective local authority.
He would further point out that by virtue of section 4(2A) of
the Act of 1998, one seat has to be reserved for scheduled tribe in
District Planning Committee where such district does not have a
separate District Planning Committee exclusively for the Tribal Sub-
Plan (TSP). Since district Dhule falls in TSP area, no seat is reserved
for S.T. category in the District Planning Committee. Merely because
the local MLA has approached the Government and the replies have
been filed by the Government mentioning that it is thinking of providing
for reservation to S.T., the impugned communication has been issued
without there being any power or the authority in the State
Government. The communication be quashed and set aside and
direction be issued for completing the election process.
4. Learned Government Pleader rebutting the affidavits-in-
replies submits that since there is no reservation for S.T. category as
4 WP / 9425 /2022
per the representation of the local MLA, the impugned communication
was made and the Government would issue appropriate direction and
instructions.
5. Learned AGP would further refer to the provisions of
section 12 of the Act of 1998 and submits that the State Government
has the power to issue directives to the District Planning Committees
with regard to guidelines on functioning, resolution adopted and any
other matter fit to be taken up with the committee and this power would
even include the power to direct postponement of the elections for the
appropriate reason.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the process of
election of the District Planning Committee had commenced with a
programme published on 08-08-2022, pursuant to the order of this
Court in writ petition no. 2452 of 2022 dated 04-04-2022 (supra).
This Court had directed the respondents to complete the election
process within eight weeks.
We do not feel it appropriate to go into the dispute as to if
the direction was obeyed in strict sense. The fact remains that
pursuant to the directions of this Court, the election programme was
published. The State was a party to that writ petition and in spite of
5 WP / 9425 /2022
that by the impugned communication for whatever reason, the State
Government has granted stay to the further process of election.
It would be, in our considered view, an issue which would be bordering
contempt.
8. Going by the impugned communication, one cannot make
out the reason which prompted the State Government to stall the
ongoing election process. It is only the respondents' affidavits in reply,
that they are now coming with a stand that a local MLA had
approached the State Government by making representation and
pointing out that there is no representation for the S.T. category
persons. Be that as it may. We are only concerned with the powers of
the State Government to issue any such direction stalling the further
progress of the election process which had already commenced when
it was under an obligation in view of our direction in writ petition
no. 2452 of 2022. Issuing such impugned communication stalling the
election process midway that too without informing this Court much
less seeking any leave or extension to complete the election process
does not behove with the State.
9. The provision of section 2(2A) of the Act, when admittedly
Dhule district which falls under Tribal Sub-Plan, there cannot be any
reservation for the S.T. category which fact has been specifically
admitted in the affidavit in reply filed by the State (paragraph no. 7),
6 WP / 9425 /2022
irrespective of the intention of the State Government, so long as there
is no statutory provision earmarking any reservation for S.T. category in
the Dhule District Planning Committee which falls under TSP, the action
of the State in issuing the impugned communication and stalling the
ongoing election process, cannot be said to be having any legal basis
and would constitute arbitrary exercise of the powers.
10. The writ petition is allowed.
11. We quash and set aside the impugned communication and
direct the respondents to commence the election process from the
stage it had reached and conclude it as expeditiously as possible and
in any event within six (6) weeks from today.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
