Geeta Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6234 of 2020 Decided on: 1st January, 2021 ____________________________________________________________

.

Geeta Singh

.....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 Bani Bakholi,

.

Development Block Pachhad, District Sirmour as

'Unreserved'.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the Gram Panchayat in question has never been reserved for

Male members belonging to Scheduled Caste community.

This, according to learned counsel, amounts to denial of

equal opportunity of representation to the concerned

category. Accordingly, he has prayed that Gram Panchayat

Bani Bakholi is required to be kept reserved for Scheduled

Caste (Male) Category in the ensuing 2020-21 elections to

Panchayati Raj Institutions.

3. 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 reserved for Scheduled Caste (Male)

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 kept

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 open (Unreserved). 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 01, 2021                          Judge
         (Mukesh)