Vijay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 139 HP

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.6343/2020 Reserved on 01.01.2021

.

                                       Decided on: 04.01.2021





    Vijay Kumar                               ...Petitioner.
                          Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others         . ..Respondents.

....................................................................................... Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon'ble Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner
                         r     :         to              No.

Mr. Sudhir Thakur Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Vikas Rathore, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General, Mr.

Bhupinder Thakur, Ms. Seema Sharma, & Mr. Yudhvir Thakur Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents/State.

Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate, for

Election Commission.

(Through Video conferencing)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

Petitioner seeks quashing of notification dated

16.12.2020 whereby post of Member Zila Parishad Bag Pashog

District Sirmour, H.P., has been reflected as reserved for women in

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

ensuing 2020­21 elections scheduled to be held for Panchayati Raj

institutions in the State.

.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that

the post of member in concerned Zila Parishad had been

continuously kept for reserved category from 2005 onwards and,

therefore, in this election, it is required to be kept open for persons

belonging to General Category. Giving further details, learned

Senior Counsel submits that the concerned Zila Parishad was

reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes in 2005 Election,

for women belonging to General category in 2010, for women

belonging to Scheduled Castes in 2015 and in 2020 Elections, it has

again been reserved for women. This according to learned Senior

Counsel amounts to denial of opportunity of fair representation to

the male members of General category.

Learned Advocate General submitted that as per the

amended provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act 1994 and H.P.

Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, year 2010 has been taken as the

base year for implementation of Election Reservation Roster.

Therefore, Reservation Roster of previous years elections, is not to

be considered. Reservation roster has accordingly been applied &

rotated in subsequent elections in accordance with applicable

provisions of H.P. Pachayati Raj Act 1994 and the H.P. Panchayati

Raj (Election) Rules. It is by applying the Election Reservation

.

Roster in­consonance with the principle of rotation envisaged under

the Act and the Rules that the post in question has been reserved

for the women in ensuing elections being conducted for Panchayati

Raj institutions. No legal and cogent argument in support of the

plea of wrong application & alleged repetition of Election

Reservation Roster with respect to the prayers made in the writ

petition has been advanced. The petitioner has failed to substantiate

the plea of Election Reservation Roster having been wrongly applied

& rotated to the seat in question or that the seat was essentially

required to be kept for General Category. Accordingly finding no

merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. The parties are

left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge January 4th, 2021 (rohit)