BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01/10/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.8770 of 2006 and M.P.No.2 of 2006 G.Sivam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Election Officer and the District Collector, Collectorate, Sivagangai. 2.The State Election Commissioner, Chennai. 3.The Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Tamil nadu, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in Part II Section 2 No.228 Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 02.09.2006, G.O.(MS)No.701 dated 01.09.2006 in respect of Tanjakoor Panchayat, quash the same and direct the respondents to allow all the people to contest in the ensuing election for the post of the president for Tanjakoor Panchayat by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 13.09.2006 to the respondents. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Gurudas ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janaki Ramulu Special Government Pleader :ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by P.K.MISRA,J.)
Heard Mr.Gurudas, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed on 15.09.2006 with a prayer for
issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the third
respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.107, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C)
Department, dated 01.09.2007, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
Extraordinary No.228, Part-II Section 2, dated 02.09.2006, in respect of
Tanjakoor Panchayat and to direct the respondents to allow all the people to
contest in the ensuing election for the post of office of the president of
Tanjakoor Panchayat on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner dated
13.09.2006.
3. The petitioner belongs to Tanjakoor village in Sullangudi
Panchayat Union, which consists of four Panchayats viz., Sullangudi, Kattikulam,
Vilathur and Tanjakoor. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that
as per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994,
hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation
of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules 1995, hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules”, Tanjakoor Village panchayat should not have been considered as
reserved panchayat for the purpose of election to the office of the president
and as per Rule 7 of the Rules, Kattikulam panchayat should have been reserved.
4. The provisions contained in the Act indicate that as per Section
57(1) of the Act, office of the Presidents of Village panchayats shall be
reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
and the number of seats so reserved shall bear as nearly as, may be, the same
proportion to the total number of offices in the State, as the population of the
Scheduled Castes in the State or the Scheduled Tribes in the State bear to the
total population of the State. As per Section 57(1-D) proviso, the Offices
reserved under this Section, shall be allotted by rotation to different
panchayats at each level in such manner, as may be prescribed.
5. Rule 6(1) of the Rules contemplates that seats shall be reserved
in the Offices of Presidents of Village panchayats for the persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The total number of seats so reserved for
the offices of the Panchayat President should bear as nearly as may be, the same
proportion to the total number of offices in the panchayats in the State as the
population of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes bear to the total
population of the State.
As per Rule 6(1-C), the Offices of the Presidents of Village
panchayats reserved shall be allotted to every panchayat union taking into
consideration the population of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes in
every such panchayat union, in such a manner that the total number of offices so
allotted in all the village panchayats does not exceed the total number of the
offices reserved under sub rule (1) of Rule 6.
Rule 7 prescribes that there shall be rotation of reservation of
offices under Rule 6. It provides that reservation shall be made in the
panchayat where the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is
comparatively large to the total population of the panchayat by adopting a list
of panchayats arranged in the descending order of the percentage of Schedules
Castes.
6. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that in the
election held in 1996 the office of the President of Sullangudi was reserved for
Scheduled Caste based on the percentage of population therein. It is further
stated that as per the actual population, by applying the rule of rotation as
contemplated in Rule 7, the next panchayat in descending order is Kattikulam
but, by mistake, the authorities have reserved Tanjakoor panchayat. In this
contest it is contended that in the census for the year 1991 it had been shown
that there were only 21 persons belonging to Scheduled Caste in Tanjakoor
panchayat but, during the year 2001 census, it was erroneously indicated that
persons belonging to Scheduled caste is 366, which must be considered as obvious
mistake as the population of the Scheduled Caste would not have been multiplied
more than 15 times. It is further contended that if correct figures of
Scheduled Caste population would have been ascertained during 2001 census,
Tanjakoor panchayat would not have been reserved as proportion Scheduled caste
population therein was the lowest. It is submitted that because of the obvious
mistake committed during 2001 census, Tanjakoor panchayat has been erroneously
reserved and the people of such panchayat have been deprived of their right. It
is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the figure
in the census report of 2001 was incorrect.
7. The aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner
obviously raises a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ
petition. Apart from the above, there is no dispute that if the present
panchayat namely, Tanjakoor panchayat, would not have been treated as a reserved
panchayat for the purpose of Office of President, some other panchayat would
have been treated as reserved category. Election in both such panchayats has
already taken place, but the elected Presidents have not been impleaded. It is
obvious, if we set aside such election on the ground of wrong reservation, as
alleged by the petitioner, the elected Presidents of both the panchayats would
be affected.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are disinclined to issue a writ of
certiorarified mandamus for quashing the election. However, the dismissal of
the present writ petition will not stand in the way of the appropriate authority
considering the question of reserving any other panchayat instead of Tanjakoor
panchayat during the next election. No costs. Connected M.P.No.2 of 2006 is also
dismissed.
To
1.The Election Officer/the District Collector,
Collectorate, Sivagangai.
2.The State Election Commissioner,
Chennai.
3.The Secretary,
Rural Development&Panchayat raj Department,
Government of Tamil nadu,
Chennai.