Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8867 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2101/2020

Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Jat (Maderna), Resident Of Shri Krishan Nagar, Tehsil Bapini District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. District Collector (Panchayat), Jodhpur.

3. Dy. District Election Officer Cum Addl. District Collector First, Jodhpur.

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

Reserved on 23/03/2021 Pronounced on 06/04/2021

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :-

"(i) the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 (Ann.15) passed by District Collector, Jodhpur may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the respondent District Collector, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to redraw the lot for reservations of wards of

(2 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

Panchayat Samiti Aau in pursuance of the wards formed vide notification dated 28.01.2020 (Ann.14)

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is a resident of Village Krishan Nagar, which is a part of

the newly created Panchayat Samiti, Aau.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department issued a

Gazette Notification dated 15.11.2019, whereby some of the

panchayat samitis, including the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, have

been subjected to delimitation exercise. Learned counsel also

submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap was a part of the

Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, and Village Santok Nagar is the part of

Gram Panchayat, Suvap.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

another Notification was issued on 17.11.2019, whereby

Panchayat Samiti, Bapini had been divided into two parts, while

creating new Panchayat Samiti, Aau. Learned counsel also

submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap had been kept as part

of the Panchayat Samiti, Aau.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

Additional District Collector & Additional District Magistrate,

Phalodi, vide its communication dated 27.11.2019, had informed

the District Collector, Jodhpur regarding the proposed wards, in

relation to Panchayat Samiti, Aau and Panchayat Samiti, Bapini,

which were formed, after deciding the respective objections.

Learned counsel however, submitted that the list of the proposed

wards, communicated vide the said communication dated

(3 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

27.11.2019, had not been published by the District Collector,

which is required as per relevant provisions of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short, 'the Rules of

1994').

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

Ward No.7 was comprising two gram panchayats, namely, Gram

Panchayat, Suvap and Gram Panchayat, Kerla. Learned counsel

further submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap was having

three villages, namely, Suvap, Fateh Nagar and Santokh Nagar.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

process of ward formation for the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini had

been completed, as reflected in the aforementioned

communication dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure-4).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of

this Court towards the Notification dated 01.12.2019 issued by the

Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, in which the

respondents had again, while delimiting some of the gram

panchayats, removed Village Santok Nagar from the Gram

Panchayat, Suvap, and the said Village Santok Nagar had been

included in Gram Panchayat, Isru. Learned counsel therefore,

submitted that, after such delimitation, the Gram Panchayat

Suvap was having two villages, namely, Suvap and Fateh Nagar,

which is the part of Panchayat Samiti, Aau, and upon inclusion of

Village Santok Nagar in Gram Panchayat, Isru, the said Gram

Panchayat, was having three villages, namely, Isru, Karni Nagar,

and Santok Nagar.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on

09.12.2019 (Annexure-6) a communication was issued by the

Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj to all the

(4 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

District Collectors and Sub Divisional Officers, regarding the roster

system for general elections of Panchayati Raj Institutions, 2020,

and also the criteria for reservation of the seats for the respective

reserved categories, as per the Census of 2011, was prescribed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

formation of ward accordingly took place as per the notifications

so issued, but the reservation in the Panchayat Samiti, Aau was

not proceeded as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1994.

12. In support of his submissions and grievance of the present

petitioner, learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this

Court towards Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Rules of 1994, which read

as under:

"Rule 3. Matters to be taken into consideration in formation of wards and constituencies :- (1) A Panchayat circle shall be divided into as many wards as may be fixed under Section 12.

(2) A block shall be divided into as many territorial constituencies as may be fixed under Section 13.

(3) Each Zila Parishad area shall be divided into as many territorial constituencies as may be fixed under Section 14.

(4) While dividing a Panchayat circle into wards under Section 12, the Officer authorised by the government shall form, as far as practicable, a contiguous group of houses into a ward.

(5) While dividing a Panchayat Samiti area into constituencies under section 13, Officer authorised by the Government shall as far as practicable place contiguous panchayats in a constituency:

Provided that a whole village comprising a part of a panchayat circle may be placed in a different

(5 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

constituency if it is necessary to do so to distribute the population in the constituencies, as far as practicable, equally.

(6) While dividing a Zila Parishad area into constituencies under section 14, the Officer authorised by; the Government shall place contiguous panchayats into a constituency.

(7) Each ward or constituency shall be assigned a separate serial number, starting from North-West corner following anti-clock-wise direction and assigning consecutive numbers to contiguous wards or constituencies, as far as possible.

Rule 4. Publication of wards or constituencies.- (1) The wards or constituencies formed under rule 3 shall be notified by the Officer authorised by the Government by affixing statement thereof on the notice board of the office of the District Election Officer (Panchayats) and the office of Panchayat Samiti in respect of constituencies for Zila Parishads; on the notice board of the District Election Officer (Panchayats), the Panchayat Samiti, and Panchayats in respect of constituencies for Panchayat Samit; and on the notice board of the Panchayat and a conspicuous place in every village of the Panchayat in respect of wards of the Panchayats.

(2) Any adult inhabitant of the Panchayat area/constituency may, if he objects to anything contained in the Statement affixed under sub-rule (1) pertaining to the ward or constituency related to the Panchayati Raj Institution of which he is a voter, submit his objection in writing to the Officer authorised by the Government within seven days from the date of affixing of such statement.

(3) All objections received under sub-rule (2) shall be affixed on the notice board of the office of the Officer

(6 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

authorised by the Government on the date of their receipt. After the time prescribed for receipt of objections is over, the Officer authorised by the Government under rule 4 (2) shall forward all the statement of wards/constituencies formed under rule 3 and the objections, if any, received under rule 4 (2) alongwith his comments thereon to the State Government.

(4) The State Government, or any Officer authorised by it, shall thereon consider the objection and other material before it including the comments of the Officer authorised by the State Government under sub-rule (2) and shall decide the objections and thereafter amend, if necessary, the statements accordingly, finally determine the wards and constituencies and shall notify the same by affixing the final statement of wards/constituencies and shall notify the same by affixing the final statement of wards/constituencies at the following places, namely:-

(a) On the notice board of the office of District Election Officer (Panchayats) and the office of the Panchayat Samiti in respect of constituencies for Zila Parishad,

(b) On the notice board of the District Election Officer (Panchayats) and the notice board of Panchayat Samiti and Panchayats in respect of constituencies of Panchayat Samiti,

(c) On the notice board of the panchayat and a conspicuous place in every village of the Panchayat in respect of wards.'

Rule 5. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.- The number of wards of constituencies to be reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled

(7 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

Castes/Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes shall be determined by the Officer authorised by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Birth records, entries in telephone application and voters list is not sufficient of proof of religion of person professes."

Thus, as per learned counsel, the main grievance of the petitioner

is that after the aforementioned notifications were given shape,

the respondents have failed to re-draw reservations in accordance

with Rule 5 of the Rules of 1994.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that some

of the villagers of the other panchayats have challenged the

notification dated 01.12.2019, which controversy was decided by a

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Jai Singh Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17993/2019 decided

on 13.12.2019).

14. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional

Advocate General submitted that the respondent authorities have

conducted the lottery for reservation in respect of Panchayat

Samiti, Aau on 20.12.2019 before the wards were notified, and at

the time of conducting the draw of lots, Village Santok Nagar was

the part of Gram Panchayat, Isru and Panchayat Samiti, Bapini;

however, vide notification dated 15.11.2019, Village Santok Nagar

was excluded from Gram Panchayat, Isru and included in Gram

Panchayat, Suvap.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that

subsequently, on 27.11.2019, the respondents have called the

objections regarding formation of wards, and at that time, Village

Santok Nagar was part of the Gram Panchayat, Suvap, and the

(8 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

total voters of the Village Santok Nagar were 1114 and total

voters of Panchayat Samiti, Aau were 72657.

16. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that

after excluding the name of Village Santok Nagar from Gram

Panchayat, Isru, the total voters of Panchayat Samiti, Bapini were

70564, as on the date of formation of the ward.

17. Learned Additional Advocate General further informed this

Court that after issuance of the Notification dated 01.12.2019,

Village Santok Nagar had been included in the Gram Panchayat,

Isru, and again became a part of the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini.

Learned Additional Advocate General also informed that the

respondent authorities did not form any ward as per the

notification, and thus, the original reservation criteria was

sustained, and the lots were drawn accordingly.

18. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that

from a bare perusal of the determination of seats after

effectuating the Notification dated 01.12.2019, it is amply clear

that although there was a change in the population upon inclusion

of Village Santok Nagar in Gram Panchayat Isru of Panchayat

Samiti, Bapini, however, the said inclusion did not vary the

descending order of population of the Scheduled Castes category

or the allotment of seats in any ward.

19. Learned Additional Advocate General, apart from the

aforesaid, made a categorical submission that the order dated

31.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur, whereby a

decision was taken not to go for re-draw of the lottery in respect

of Panchayat Samiti, Bapini and Aau, and validity whereof i.e.

order dated 31.01.2020 is under challenge in the present petition,

(9 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

was passed in pursuance of the communications/orders issued by

the State Government on 24.01.2020 and 27.01.2020.

20. Learned Additional Advocate also made a submission that the

legality and validity of the said communications/orders dated

24.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 was earlier challenged before this

Hon'ble Court in Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1693/2020 decided on 26.02.2020),

and vide the said judgment, the writ petition was dismissed by

this Hon'ble Court, while observing that the State Government

was right in issuing the aforementioned orders in the

extraordinary circumstances.

As per the learned Additional Advocate General since after

dismissal of the said writ petition, the orders under challenge

therein have attained finality, therefore, the order impugned in the

present petition, which is also based on the

communications/orders dated 24.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 issued

by the State Government, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary,

in any manner whatsoever.

21. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that

the issue of delimitation had already been decided by a Division

Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Jai Singh (supra), whereafter, the

State Election Commission initiated the election process of various

gram panchayats in the State. Learned Additional Advocate

General also submitted that the process of formation of wards for

Panchayat Samiti, Aau and Panchayat Samiti, Bapini was also

undertaken as per Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1994; but

before the elections of the gram panchayats for the first phase

could be held, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an interim

stay order on 08.01.2020 in Special Leave to Appeal (C)

(10 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

No(s).30471/2019 arising out of the judgment rendered in Jai

Singh (supra).

Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that however,

subsequently, on 24.01.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

permitted the State Election Commission to hold the elections as

per the notifications dated 15/16.11.2019, 23.11.2019,

01/02.12.2019 and 12.12.2019, in second half of April, 2020.

22. Learned Additional Advocate further categorically submitted

that since the exercise for formation of wards and lottery for the

purpose of reservation had already been undertaken, therefore, in

order to proceed further with the election process,

communications/orders dated 24.01.2020 and 27.01.2020 were

issued with a direction to undertake the exercise of formation of

wards, whereas the re-lottery for the purpose of providing

reservation was stipulated to be undertaken, only in case there is

a change in reservation, and not otherwise.

23. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that in

the present case, initially, the procedure as required under the

Election Rules of 1994 was duly followed, and the reservation was

accordingly assigned to the respective ward; however, after

issuance of the communications/orders dated 24.01.2020 and

27.01.2020, the publication regarding formation of wards as per

Rules 3 and 4(4) of the Rules of 1994 was made on 28.01.2020.

24. Learned Additional Advocate General however, submitted

that the objections, as required under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of

1994, were not invited, in view of issuance of the Circular dated

24.01.2020. In regard to the procedure, as required under Rule 5

of the Rules of 1994, learned Additional Advocate General

categorically submitted that the same was not required to be

(11 of 11) [CW-2101/2020]

followed, as there was no change in the reservation, particularly,

in regard to Panchayat Samiti, Bapini and Aau.

25. Learned Additional Advocate General thus, lastly submitted

that the petitioner in the present petition has failed to substantiate

any violation of law or any arbitrariness in the act of the

respondents so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

26. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well

as on a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that in

the additional affidavit, the respondents have produced two

sequences of Panchayat Samiti, Aau and Panchayat Samiti, Bapini,

and in the schedule of charts, it is reflected that the sequence of

the ward-wise reserved population remained the same, which was

there in consequence of the earlier notification.

27. This Court, on carefully examining the record, also finds that

the earlier lotteries for reservation for the panchayat samities

were conducted on 20.12.2019, and which was in conformity with

Rule 9 of the Rules of 1994, and thus, any subsequent notification

has not changed the constituency of the reserved categories,

which would require any intervention of this Court.

28. Thus, in view of the above, this Court does not find any merit

in this petition, so as to make any interference at this belated

stage.

29. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. The stay

application also stands dismissed. All pending applications stand

disposed of accordingly.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)