Madras High Court
A.Karuppanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 May, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, R.Tharani
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
W.P.(MD) No.20690/2019
01.10.2019
W.P.(MD) No.20060/2019 17.10.2019
03.10.2019 W.P.(MD) No.21165/2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17313, 17314, 16587, 16590, 17799 & 17801 of 2019
A.Karuppanan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.20690 of 2019
A.Lakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.20060 of 2019
V.Pandiyan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.21165 of 2019
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
Department of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply
St.George Fort
Chennai
1/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj
St.George Fort
Chennai
3.The Election Commissioner
Tamil Nadu State Election Commission
208/2, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Opp.CMBT, Arumbakkam
Chennai-600 106
4.The Commissioner
Municipality Administration
Ezhilagam
Chepauk
Chennai-5 ... Respondents 1 to 4 in all W.Ps.
5.The Electoral Officer /
District Collector
Trichy District, Trichy ... 5th Respondent in W.P.(MD) Nos.
20690 & 21165 of 2019
6.The Electoral Officer /
District Collector
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai ... 5th Respondent in W.P.(MD) No.
20060 of 2019
PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.20690 of 2019): Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned notification issued by the 2nd
respondent vide his proceedings in G.O.(Ms).57, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (PR-1) dated 20.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal and
2/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification regarding
reservation of seat in the Thoppampatti Village Panchayat Ward No.1 in the
Manaparai Panchayat Union, Trichy District adhering to the Tamil Nadu
Panchayts Act, 1994 and Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and
Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995, by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 23.07.2019.
PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.20060 of 2019): Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned notification issued by the 2nd
respondent vide his proceedings in G.O.(Ms).57, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (PR-1) dated 20.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification regarding
reservation of seats in Village Panchayats, Panchayat Union Councils and
District Panchayats adhering to the Tamil Nadu Panchayts Act, 1994 and
Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats)
Rules, 1995, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2017.
PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.21165 of 2019): Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
3/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
the records pertaining to the impugned notification issued by the 2nd
respondent vide his proceedings in G.O.(Ms).57, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (PR-1) dated 20.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh notification regarding
reservation of seat in the Manapparai Panchayat Union Councils, Manapparai
Taluk, Trichy District adhering to the Tamil Nadu Panchayts Act, 1994 and
Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats)
Rules, 1995, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
(in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690 & 21165 of 2019)
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Anantha Murugan
(in W.P.(MD) No.20060 of 2019)
For Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5 : Mr.K.Chellapandian
(in all W.Ps.) Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy
(in all W.Ps.)
COMMON ORDER
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
The reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions are identical. Therefore, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
2. The challenge is to a notification issued by the second respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.57, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1), dated 20.05.2019, pertaining to reservation of seats in District Panchayat Wards under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”).
3. The petitioner Mr.A.Karuppanan submits that he is a native of Thoppampatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, which comes under Thoppampatti Village Panchayat Ward No.I in Manaparai Panchayat Union. This Ward was declared as a reserved constituency for scheduled caste candidates for more than four tenures. It is submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter, referred to as “the Rules), the State Government should have followed the rotation basis and declared the constituency as a general category. However, in the impugned Government Notification, Thoppampatti Village Panchayat Ward No.I was declared as a reserved seat for SC General. It is contended that the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents and requested them to re-allot the seats of the Ward. But, a reply was sent stating that already the Ward has been 5/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019 reserved for Scheduled Caste and therefore, the petitioner is questioning the impugned notification.
4. It is submitted that the impugned notification is contrary to Rule 7 of the Rules. It is further submitted that the impugned notification curtails the rights of the scheduled caste people belonging to the other Village Panchayats, which are in general category and the people are not able to contest in the elections due to reservation. On these grounds, Mr.S.Pugalendhi, learned counsel, prayed for setting aside of the impugned notification.
5. Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.20060 of 2019, submitted that the petitioner is a native of Thayamangalam Village, which falls within the jurisdiction of Ilayankudi Panchayat Union and assigned Ward No.16 of the District Panchayat and in the Panchayat Union Council as Ward No.1. In both the Wards, the seat is reserved for scheduled caste candidates for more than two terms and as per the Rules, rotation should have been followed and the seats should have been declared as general category. However, the impugned notification has been issued reserving the seat for scheduled caste candidate. 6/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Article 243D(1) of the Constitution of India and submitted that the constitutional mandate is that the seat shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat Union and the impugned notification has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, without considering the constitutional provisions.
7. Further, it is submitted that no delimitation exercise was conducted by the respondents and the impugned notification has been issued in an arbitrary manner and as it infringes Article 243D of the Constitution of India, the same is liable to be set aside.
8. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 5, submitted that the last delimitation exercise was conducted in the year 1995. Subsequently, the exercise was undertaken in the year 2018 and the territorial limits of each wards have been realigned and wards have been rearranged and a notification has been issued. It is submitted that a thorough exercise had been undertaken by the Authorities and the allocation of Ward as a reserved seat is done by taking 7/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019 into consideration the total population of the people belonging to the scheduled caste community / the total population in the Ward X the number of Wards and wherever the population of scheduled caste persons is higher, the Ward is reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. To demonstrate the same, the learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the reservation details in Manapparai Panchayat Union and submitted that the Panchayat Union Ward Nos.1, 4 and 8 out of the total seventeen Wards have higher scheduled caste population of 31.3%, 29.3% and 22.6% respectively and therefore, those Wards were reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Further, it is submitted that the delimitation exercise having been undertaken and a notification after having been issued, the writ petitions are not maintainable as settled by this Court in several decisions.
9. Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that though the Election Commission has no role to play in the relief sought for in the writ petitions, nevertheless, the petitioners having thought fit to implead the Election Commission as a party respondent, he may be permitted to assist the Court by placing the correct legal decisions.
8/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
10. It is the submission of the learned counsel that there is nothing in Article 243D of the Constitution of India to indicate the reservation for scheduled caste candidate as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the reservation, which is spoken of in the said provision, pertains to the reservation for women. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to Article 243D(4) and submitted that there is no legal right conferred by the Constitution as projected by the petitioners and the writ petitions are devoid of merits.
11. Further, it is submitted that Rule 7 of the Rules has been amended and this has not been taken note of by the petitioners. Further, the learned counsel referred to Sections 11, 20(3) and 32 of the Act pertaining to reservation of seats and submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners do not merit consideration.
12. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The first hurdle the petitioners have to surmount is to satisfy this Court that the writ petitions are maintainable. One of the contentions raised by Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, learned counsel, is that no delimitation 9/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019 exercise was conducted. This submission is factually incorrect as delimitation exercise has been conducted and notification has been issued assigning the Wards under different categories. The consistent view of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court in this regard is that there is no scope of interference by this Court in a writ proceedings with the delimitation exercise. Admittedly, no mala fides have been attributed to nor alleged and established with regard to the exercise undertaken by the respondents before issuing the impugned notification. Therefore, we cannot be called upon to exercise our writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned notification, which has been issued after a delimitation exercise has been conducted. The petitioners can never dispute the settled legal position, more so, on the face of the case as projected by them.
14. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 that nothing flows out of Article 243D of the Constitution of India to strengthen the case of the petitioners. Furthermore, Rule 7 of the Rules has undergone a change and sub-rule (2) has been added vide Notification in G.O.Ms No.105, Rural Development (C4) Department, dated 01.09.2006. Sub-Rule (2) commences with a non obstante clause notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, (a) the seats 10/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019 reserved for persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the Wards or territorial Wards, as the case may be of the Village Panchayats, Panchayat Unions and District Panchayats under sub-rule (1) shall, subject to the change if any in the number of seats to be reserved in such Wards for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to adoption of the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published, continue to be reserved as such, until the Government direct otherwise.
15. Admittedly, fresh census had not been conducted. The delimitation exercise has been undertaken taking note of the population in the area. It is stated that there was realignment of the territorial limits of the Ward and the petitioners are not right in contending that the constituency should automatically stand converted as a general category seat. In the light of the settled legal position defining the limits of jurisdiction of this Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with such delimitation exercise, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the impugned notification. 11/13 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
16. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.S.S.,J.] [R.T.,J.]
17.10.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply,
State of Tamil Nadu,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj,
State of Tamil Nadu,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
3.The Electoral Officer /
District Collector,
Trichy District, Trichy.
4.The Electoral Officer /
District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
12/13
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165 of 2019
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
R.THARANI, J.
krk
COMMON ORDER
IN
W.P.(MD) Nos.20690, 20060 & 21165
of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17313, 17314, 16587,
16590, 17799 & 17801 of 2019
17.10.2019
13/13
http://www.judis.nic.in