Bombay High Court
Shri. Manohar Krishna Madhavi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 24 February, 2021
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: Dipankar Datta, G. S. Kulkarni
1 wpl-4000&4036.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4000 OF 2020
Smt. Vinaya Manohar Madhavi. .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents
--
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4036 OF 2020
Shri Manohar Krishna Madhavi. .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents
--
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Suresh M.
Sabrad, Mr. Amey C. Sawant and Ms. Neha R. Parte for the
Petitioners.
Smt. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye along with Mr. Naveen Choumal
for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for Respondents 3 and 4.
--
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATED :- FEBRUARY 24, 2021 P.C.:
1. Identical questions of law being involved in these two writ petitions, the same have been considered together and shall stand disposed of by this common order.
2 wpl-4000&4036.2020
2. Under challenge in both these writ petitions is a Notification dated February 24, 2020 issued by the State Election Officer, respondent no.2, reserving Ward No.16 for Scheduled Caste (Women) in respect of the ensuing elections of the Municipal Corporation of the city of Navi Mumbai, respondent no.4. While praying for quashing such notification, the petitioners have prayed for further direction on the respondent no.2 to de-reserve Ward No.16 by following the rotation system and in accordance with law.
3. Appearing in support of the writ petitions, Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel has contended that the extant law in respect of reservation of wards for Scheduled Caste candidates has not been followed and, therefore, it is a fit case for judicial intervention by this Court in exercise of its power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, Mr. Shetye, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Marne, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 have submitted in unison that there has been no departure to follow the extant law and that 3 wpl-4000&4036.2020 reserving Ward No.16 for Scheduled Caste (women) candidates is perfectly justified on facts and in the circumstances.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length and are of the considered view that these writ petitions can be disposed of on a very short point, without examining the merits of the petitioners' challenge.
6. After the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, issued an order dated January 3, 2020 laying down the procedure for reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Class/Woman candidates, a notice was issued in a local newspaper on January 28, 2020 indicating particulars of wards which were reserved and objections/suggestions invited from the general public in regard thereto. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners lodged objections with regard to reservation of Ward No.16 for Scheduled Caste (women). According to them, in terms of the rotation policy, Ward No.16 should not have been reserved. Also, having regard to the population of the members of the Scheduled Caste 4 wpl-4000&4036.2020 community in such ward and in the other wards, Ward No.16 should have been kept free of any reservation.
7. Although the writ petitions are silent on the point that a hearing was extended to the objectors on February 14, 2020 in respect of the proposal to reserve Ward No.16 for Scheduled Caste (women) candidates, which was duly attended by them, and that such non- disclosure has been agitated as a ground for not exercising discretion in their favour, in the midst of hearing we expressed prima facie reservation regarding the manner in which the objections of the petitioners were finally disposed of. We have found from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.2 that hearing was accorded to all the residents of Ward No.16 who had lodged objections and were present at the hearing and also that the deliberations have been video graphed, which would show that the hearing was not a mere ritual; nonetheless, the orders of disposal of the petitioners' objections appeared to us to be cryptic.
8. While we were informed by Mr. Shetye that in the peculiar facts of the present case the respondent no.2 is 5 wpl-4000&4036.2020 agreeable to pass a fresh reasoned order on the objections of the petitioners, we heard Mr. Jahagirdar submit that the petitioners should be heard once again; and, if at all, we are disinclined to grant further opportunity of hearing, the petitioners should at least be given an opportunity of filing written submissions. Such prayer of Mr. Jahagirdar has been vehemently opposed, both by Mr. Shetye and Mr. Marne. According to them, the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.4000 of 2020 had taken the lead role in course of consideration of the objections from the residents of Ward No.16 and since deliberations lasting about an hour have been video graphed, there is no reason to grant further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or liberty to them to file written submissions.
9. We do not consider that any such opportunity as prayed for by Mr. Jahagirdar ought to be granted. The petitioners' objections are on record and their submissions at the hearing have been video graphed. It is on such basis that a fresh order can be passed.
10. The respondent no.2 shall proceed to pass an appropriate reasoned order and thereby dispose of the 6 wpl-4000&4036.2020 objections of the petitioners in accordance with law as early as possible.
11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
G.S. KULKARNI, J CHIEF JUSTICE Pravin D. Pandit Digitally signed by Pravin D. Pandit Date: 2021.03.01 11:18:40 +0530