____________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 143 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6115 of 2020 Reserved on : 30th December, 2020

.

Decided on: 4th January, 2021

____________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Katwal .....Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No

______________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur,

Mr. Vikas Rathore & Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur &

Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents

No.1, 3 and 4-State.

Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

(Through Video Conferencing)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

The grievance in this writ petition is to the

notification dated 14.12.2020 issued by the respondents

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

under Section 125 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read

with Rule 87 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, to

the extent it keeps the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat

.

Bahari, Development Block Dharampur, District Mandi, for

Women in the ensuing 2020-21 elections to Panchayati Raj

Institutions in the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner prays that the post of Pradhan,

Gram Panchayat Bahari is required to be kept Unreserved.

The only basis for this contention is that the Gram Panchayat

in question was reserved for Women in 2010 elections and in

2015 elections, it was reserved for Women belonging to

Scheduled Caste Category. Therefore, in the ensuing 2020-21

elections, the post in question cannot be again reserved for

Women. This, according to learned counsel, amounts to

denial of equal opportunity of fair representation to the

members of other categories including General category.

No argument, legal or otherwise, in support of the

above contention has been advanced by learned counsel for

the petitioner, save and except that the Gram Panchayat in

question had never been kept Unreserved in previous two

elections held in 2010 and 2015. Whereas, learned Advocate

General submitted that by applying and rotating the election

reservation roster in accordance with the provisions of

relevant Statute and Rules framed thereunder, the Gram

.

Panchayat in question was reserved for Women in 2010

elections, for Women belonging to Scheduled Caste Category

in 2015 elections and now in the ensuing 2020-21 elections

to Panchayati Raj Institutions, the seat has been kept for

Women. In absence of any cogent and legal rebuttal to the

submissions made on behalf of the respondents-State, we

find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any.

                                       (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                               Judge






                                          (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
    January 04, 2021                            Judge
          (Mukesh)