CWP/6245/2020 of HARI SINGH PACHNAYAK Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS on 31 December 2020

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.6245/2020

Decided on: 31.12.2020

Hari Singh Pachnayak

…Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others . ..Respondents.

……………………………………………………………………………

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate.

For the respondents :Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate Generalwith Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. VikasRathore, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr.Nand Lal Thakur, Additional AdvocatesGeneral, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Ms.Seema Sharma, & Mr. Yudhvir ThakurDeputyAdvocateGenerals,forrespondents/State.

(Through Video conferencing)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

The petitioner’s grievance is in respect to the changes made in the Election Roster of Panchayat Samiti Kulag falling in Kupvi Block of District Shimla for ensuing elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions of the respondents/State.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thePanchayat Samiti Kulag was shown as un-reserved in thenotification dated 15.12.2020, however, two days later on17.12.2020 another notification was issued reflecting the same Panchayat Samiti reserved for women belonging to un-reservedcategory.

3. Learned Advocate General has submitted that thematter of change of Panchayat Election Roster of PanchayatSamiti Kulag (Kupvi Block) has already been inquired into by therespondents while examining a complaint received in this regard.

The inquiry was conducted and report was submitted byAdditional District Magistrate (L&O) Shimla, who concluded asunder:- “I have gone through the entire record made available to me andfound that the notification No. CPL-MA (Panchayati Raj)125/2020-6451 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Chopalon 15.12.2020 (Annexure-A) w.r.t to the reservation roster forPanchayat Samiti Members of Development Block Kupvi relatedto reservation for the SC women and SC category, has been doneon the basis of percentage of SC women out of SC populationwhich is wrong. The reservation for SC women and SC categoryis to be done on the basis of percentage of SC women out of thetotal population of Dev. Block. The second notification issuedby him on 17.12.2020 (Annexure-B) is correct as per theguidelines dated 24.9.2020 issued by the Govt. The notificationissued on 15.12.2020 by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Chopalis based on the ambiguous data supplied by the BDO Kupvi incolumn No.14 and 22 (Annexure-C) which is as under:- Column No.14---------SC Female%

Column No.22---------SC Female%

The above status was later on clarified by the BDO Kupvi byadding “out of SC population” in column No.14 and “out of totalpopulation” in column No.22 (Annexure-D) and revisednotification has accordingly been rightly issued by Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Chopal on 17.12.2020 vide No. CPL-MA(Panchayati Raj) 125/2020-6536-40.”

When notification dated 15.12.2020, was found to have been issued on incorrect & ambiguous data then it wasessentially required to be rectified by the respondents. Themistake was accordingly rectified in accordance with law byissuing notification on 17.12.2020. Respondents were within theirrights in issuing the corrected notification.

4. Another argument raised by learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the Panchayat Samiti Kulag could not have beenreserved for women belonging to un-reserved category. Accordingto the respondents/State, while reserving the concernedPanchayat Samiti for women belonging to un-reserved category,the Election Reservation Roster has been correctly applied on thebasis of relevant data and in accordance with provisions ofapplicable Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could notsubstantiate the plea of Election Reservation Roster having been wrongly applied to the seat in question or that the seat wasessentially required to be kept open for un-reserved category.Accordingly we do find any merit in the instant petition and thesame is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)Judge

December 31, 2020 (rohit)

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)Judge