Kamal Dutt vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6349 of 2020 Decided on: 1st January, 2021 ____________________________________________________________

.

Kamal Dutt

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh 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?

______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, 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 and 3-State.

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

(Through Video Conferencing)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner has prayed for quashing of notification

dated 16.12.2020 issued by the respondents-State in exercise

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

of powers conferred under Section 125 of H.P. Panchayati Raj

Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, to the

extent the same reflects Gram Panchayat Thaina Basotri,

.

Development Block Rajgarh, District Sirmour as reserved for

Scheduled Caste (Open) Category.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the Gram Panchayat in question has never been reserved for

Women belonging to General Category. This, according to

learned counsel, amounts to denial of equal opportunity of

fair representation to the concerned category. Accordingly, he

has prayed that Gram Panchayat Thaina Basotri is required

to be kept reserved for Women belonging to General

Category in the ensuing Panchayati Raj Institutions elections

2020-21.

3. No cogent and legal argument 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 reserved for Women belonging to

Un-reserved Category 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 belonging to Scheduled Caste Category in

.

2010 elections, Unreserved in 2015 elections and now in the

ensuing 2020-21 elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions, the

seat has been kept reserved for Scheduled Caste (Open)

Category. In absence of any cogent 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 01, 2021                            Judge
          (Mukesh)