IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 12501 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 16.12.2008
Sewa Singh and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The petitioners, who are residents of Village Fatehgarh alias
Rategarh, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, and belong to the Scheduled
Caste community, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 25.4.2008
(Annexure P-1), issued by the State Government, reserving the seats of
Panches under Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).
Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court
today. The same is taken on record and its copy has been handed over to
counsel for the petitioners.
CWP No. 12501 of 2008 -2-
It is the case of the petitioners that as per the census report of
2001, the Scheduled Caste population in Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh was
155 and in spite of that, no seat of Panch was reserved for that category. It is
further case of the petitioners that in the last elections of the Gram
Panchayat i.e. in the year 2003, one seat of Panch was reserved for
Scheduled Caste category, but this time, no seat of Panch has been reserved
for this category.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it
has been stated that in the year 2008, Gram Panchayat, Village Fatehgarh @
Rategarh was bifurcated in 2 Gram Panchayats, namely Gram Panchayat,
Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh and Gram Panchayat, Village Chak
Amritsaria. After the bifurcation, the population of Village Fatehgarh @
Rategarh remains only 1372. Out of this total population of 1372, the
Scheduled Caste population was only 93 whereas the Backward Class
population was 767. Keeping in view the said population figure, which was
in accordance with the census report of 2001, no seat of Panch has been
reserved for Scheduled Caste category, because as per the percentage of the
population of the Scheduled Caste, even one seat cannot be allocated to that
category.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit
in the instant petition. According to the population figure given in the
written statement, the total population of the Scheduled Caste in the village
comes to only 6.7%. Since out of 7 seats of Panches, one seat could have
CWP No. 12501 of 2008 -3-
been reserved, if total population of the Scheduled Caste in the village was
more than 10%, therefore, in our opinion, the respondents, while making
reservation under Section 11 of the Act, vide notification dated 25.4.2008
(Annexure P-1), have rightly not reserved any seat of Panch for the
Scheduled Caste category. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that in the last elections, which were held in the year 2003, and
also prior to that, one seat of Panch was always reserved for Scheduled
Caste category, cannot be accepted, because the earlier reservation was
made on the basis of population figure given in the census report of the year
1991. Therefore, the said reservation has no relevance with the present
reservation, which is to be made, according to Section 11 of the Act, in
proportionate to the population of the Scheduled Caste in the village, as per
the census report of 2001. Even otherwise, we have been informed that the
elections of the Panches of the Gram Panchayat has been held and notified.
Thereafter, the Sarpanch has been elected and his name has also been
notified.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
December 16, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH )
ndj JUDGE