Rahana Bano vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Grievance put forth by the petitioners, of whom petitioner No. 1 is Corporator and other respondents are prospective contestants in the ensuing election of Municipal Council, Anuppur, is against the reservation of wards, vide Annexure-P/1 which records the proceedings of 26.04.2013. As apparent from the pleadings that there are fifteen wards in Municipal Council, Anuppur. The Last election was held in the year 2008. The next election is scheduled in the year 2013 of fifteen wards, one ward is reserved for Scheduled Caste, two wards for Scheduled Tribe, four wards for Other Backwards Class and eight wards are unreserved. Out of these fifteen, seven wards are reserved in favour of women i.e. one in favour of Scheduled Tribe, two in favour of Other Backward Class and four are unreserved.

The grievance raised by the petitioners is in respect of reservation in favour of women candidate. 3. Two fold contentions have been put forth, firstly, that eight seats ought to have been reserved for women candidate and secondly, the rotation has not been followed as per statutory stipulations.

During course of hearing, realizing that there is only one seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and same could not have been reserved in favour of a woman candidate as it would have led to 100% reservation, whereas, only 50% is permissible, learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the first ground of challenge that eight seats ought to have been reserved. (Proviso to sub-Rule 3 of Rule 3 of 1994 stipulates that where only one ward is reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be, then in that case ward shall not be reserved for women of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe as the case may be).

In respect of second ground of challenge that the statutory rotation has not been adhered to, learned counsel for the petitioner confines to ward No. 4 and 10.

It is urged that in 2008 election, ward No. 4 was reserved in favour of woman of Other Backward Class and ward No. 10 was unreserved. Whereas, for the election of 2013 instead of keeping ward No. 4 unreserved, the same has been reserved in favour of the General category woman and the ward No. 10, instead of being reserved in favour of women of Other Backward Class has been kept for unreserved category.

Sub-section (4) of section 29-A of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 provides that:

As nearly as possible fifty percent (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backwards Classes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in a Municipality in such manner as may be prescribed.

That, Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Reservation of wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backwards Classes and Woman) Rules 1994 has been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 355 read with Section 29-A of 1961 Act regarding reservation of wards in Municipalities.

Rule 4 of 1994 Rules provides for reservation of wards at the time of subsequent elections. It stipulates that for the purpose of every subsequent election, the same procedure of reservation shall be adopted which is described in Rule 3 for the first time reservation. It is further stipulated that the reservations to be made by lot for the purpose of rotation, the wards which are earlier reserved for a category, shall not be included in the lot for the reservation of that category, until such ward does not come again in the serial of reservation.

Proviso to Rule 4 of 1994 Rules, thus clearly stipulates that reservations be made by lot for the purpose of rotation, the wards which are earlier reserved for a category, shall not be included in the lot for the reservation of that category, until such ward does not come again in the serial of reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe/Other Backward Classes women, as the case may be.

In the case at hand, true it is, that ward No. 4 has been reserved for women candidate belonging to general category and ward No. 10 has been spared from being reserved. Since, 50% out of the seats of general category has been reserved for women belonging to general category, it is inevitable that ward No. 4 be left for women belonging to unreserved category.

The petitioner having been failed to demonstrate that an illegality has been committed, no indulgence could be caused. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.