Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taranjit Singh Walia vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2012
CWP No.10436 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10436 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.01.2012
Taranjit Singh Walia
...... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the reservation of Ward No.26 of the Phagwara Municipal Council for the municipal election held in the year 2008.
The simple ground taken by the petitioner is that even in the year 2003 the same ward i.e. Ward No.26 was reserved for backward classes and as per learned counsel for the petitioner this repetition of reservation is constitutionally impermissible. The State Government in its written statement has accepted the fact that under the constitutional scheme the same Ward cannot be reserved twice under the same head but has defended its action on what it terms to be 'peculiar circumstances'. However, CWP No.10436 of 2008 (O&M) -2- thereafter an affidavit dated 29.04.2010 was filed in which the Government mentioned as follows:-
"That the Government has carefully considered the peculiar situation faced in this case and to avoid its re-occurrence, the Government has decided that in case the State Election Commission in future sticks to hold election on the basis of previous de-limitation of wards, the Government shall make endeavour to reserve that ward for backward classes in which the population of Backward Classes is next lower than the ward already represented by the backward classes."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even the peculiar circumstances sought to be projected were not existing.
Be that as it may, I put it to learned counsel for the petitioner that now when almost 4 years out of the 5 years term of the Municipal Committee has already passed, whether it would be in the interest of justice to countermand the election of Ward No.26 and to order fresh election for this small remaining period, more so in view of the stand now taken which has been extracted above. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that once he has been able to establish that the peculiar circumstances alleged did not exist the only logical result would be to countermand the election and have fresh election.
It may be noticed that it is not a case where only the election of Ward No.26 has to be set aside but the election of some other wards also from where the candidate has already been elected, and which would have to be reserved now, would also be affected. In the considered opinion of CWP No.10436 of 2008 (O&M) -3- this Court that would be unjustified.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in view of the affidavit dated 29.04.2010 extracted above. A direction is issued to the concerned respondents to ensure that the principle of rotation of reserved constituencies is strictly followed in letter and spirit.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 23, 2012 JUDGE
ashish