Komatyreddy Pushpalatha vs Election Officer, Nellipaka Gram Panchayat and Others

M.N. Rao, J.—A great part of the Aswapuram mandal consists of scheduled areas, in respect of which the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act has no application. However, there are four villages in this mandal, which are outside the scheduled area; they are Nellipaka, Mallela Madugu, Mondikunta and Anandapuram. A notification was issued on 7-6-1995 by the Election Officer showing that Nellipaka Gram Panchayat was reserved in the general category for women. However on 1-6-1995 another notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is to the effect that Nellipaka is ear-marked in the general category but not exclusively for women.

Challenging the same the present writ petition was filed by one Smt. Komatireddy Pushpalatha, claiming to be an ex-sarpanch of Nellipaka, contending that the reservation made once cannot be altered after the election notification was issued. Another ground taken in the writ petition is that the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority to notify the reservation, but contrary to law, the same was done by the Election Officer. On these grounds the petitioner seeks a declaration that the election to the office of Sarpanch, held on 27-6-1995 be declared illegal.

One Mittakanti Peda Satti Reddy got himself impleaded as 6th respondent to this writ petition. He filed nomination for the office of Sarpanch and claims to have secured the highest number of votes but due to the stay granted by this Court, the declaration could not be made.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Sri Ravindra Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition must fail.

The competent authority to notify the reservations, as per the statutory Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 285, Panchayat Raj Rural Development & Relief (Elec. III) Department, dated 20-5-1995 is the Revenue Divisional Officer of the concerned Revenue Division. However, from the record placed before us we find that it was the Election Officer, the first respondent herein, who issued the proceedings on 7-6-1995 to the effect that Nellipaka was reserved for women. As the first notification issued on 7-6-1995 was by a person not competent to issue the same, realising the illegality, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the competent authority, issued a second notification on 10-6-1995, under which Nellipaka was shown as General category. While making the second notification the Revenue Divisional Officer strictly has followed the guide-lines contained in Clause (b) to Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid statutory Rules, which is in the following terms.

"The Revenue Divisional Officer shall reserve offices for women from out of the reserved and unreserved categories on the basis of the highest proportion of the population of women to the total population of the Grampanchayat concerned in the descending order."

The following details placed before us makes the position explicit:

______________________________________________________________________________ Percentage Reservation as Reservation as Village of women per notification per notification population dt. 7-6-1995 dt. 10-6-1995 _______________________________________________________________________________ Nellipaka 47-92 Women General Mallela Madugu 49-15 Scheduled Caste Scheduled Caste Mondikunta 48-03 General Backward Class Anandpuram 46-87 Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Tribe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Only in respect of two villages, namely, Nellipaka and Mondikunta, the change was effected by the second notification.

As per Rule 7 (iii) of the aforesaid Rules, one third of number of offices of Sarpanchas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and one third of the unreserved offices of Sarpanchas shall be reserved for Women in each Mandal Parishad. Explanation-II to Rule 7(ii) says that for the purpose of reservations to the offices of Sarpanchas, the Mandal Parishad concerned shall be taken as a unit. Clause (b) of the explanation says that if a Mandal Parishad partly falls in the Scheduled area, that part of the Mandal which is out side the Scheduled Area shall be taken as a unit. After determining the number of offices of the Sarpanchas to be reserved in each Mandal Parishad for the members belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Women, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall reserve the Gram Panchayats in the Mandal Parishad and allot to the Scheduled Tribes in the first instance where the proportion of the population of the Scheduled Tribes to the total population of the Gram Panchayat concerned is the highest in the descending order, as per Rule 8(i). Same is the principle in Sub-rules (ii) and (iii) of Rule 8, with regard to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 8 lays down that one third of the number of offices shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Schedule Castes and Backward Classes and one third of the unreserved offices shall be reserved for Women in each Mandal Parishad.

As there are only four Gram Panchayats, falling outside the Scheduled Area in Aswapuram Mandal, all the four villages shall be taken as one unit. While working out the reservation principle, out of the four villages three are given to the reserved categories, presumably on the supposition that the reserved categories must be provided for, irrespective of the total number of seats available. We are not concerned with the legality of the method adopted in working out the reservation principle, since that is not challenged before us. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 8 prescribes that one third of the unreserved offices shall be reserved for women in each Mandal Parishad. After working out the reservations, treating the four villages as one unit, only one village is left unreserved after providing for reservations in favour of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. There cannot be any further reservation of one third of the one village in favour of Women. Therefore, realising this impossibility the Revenue Divisional Officer, while issuing the second notification on 10-6-1995 ear-marked Nellipaka in the General Category. We cannot find fault with the method adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Had it not been reserved for General category, there would have been no Gram Panchayat at all from which person not belonging to the reserved categories could seek election. By working out the reservation principle and leaving one village in the General category, the Revenue divisional Officer, in the circumstances, it cannot be said, has acted in an illegal or unjust manner. We may also mention that the petitioner was not disabled from seeking election from Nellipaka.

The Writ petition, therefore fails and it accordingly dismissed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the election held on 27-06-1995 forthwith. No Costs.