Bombay High Court
Surajsingh S/O Dhirajsingh Tudanle vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 17 March, 2021
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1/3 20-WPST 4514.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 4514 OF 2021
Surajsingh s/o Dhirajsingh Tudanle
vs.
State of Maharashtra and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anil Thakkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 & 3.
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 17 MARCH 2021
Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
2. Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to the respondents, returnable on 19 th March 2021.
3. Shri N. R. Patil, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri J.B. Kasat, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
KOLHE
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2021 00:39:12 :::
2/3 20-WPST 4514.2021
4. Shri. Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 has no role to play in the matter, because reservation of seats for election to the post of Sarpanch are made by the State Government.
5. The respondent No.2 being a formal party need not file any reply in the matter. However, we would expect reply to be filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3. As soon as possible learned AGP to take instructions in the matter.
6. The State Government will have to address the fundamental issue involved in the petition. This issue relates to prohibition contained in the Rules regarding the seat being excluded from the lot, which is to be drawn for applying the reservation to the post of Sarpanch by rotation.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, what is at stake here is election to the post of Sarpanch and since no candidate from the category for which this post was available, the Rule of reservation was required to be applied by drawing of lots in which the seats that were to be included in the lots, were the seats of various reserved categories except the reserved category for which the seat was reserved during the last election.
KOLHE
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2021 00:39:12 :::
3/3 20-WPST 4514.2021
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the seat was reserved during the last election for the category of Schedule Caste and even then, this seat was included in the lots which were to be drawn for applying the Rule of reservation by rotation, which is not permissible in law.
9. The respondent Nos.1and 3 to submit their reply as regard the basic issue involved in the petition.
10. Put up for final hearing on 19 th March 2021 at 10.30a.m.
JUDGE JUDGE
KOLHE
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2021 00:39:12 :::