Bombay High Court
Usha Popat Tupe And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 March, 2021
Author: Shrikant D. Kulkarni
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni
1 968-wp 4423-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4423 OF 2021
Usha Popat Tupe
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. D. R. Kale, I/c. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 10th March, 2021. PER COURT:- . The petitioner is challenging the validity of second proviso to rule 4-A of
rule 2-A of Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanchas and Up-Sarpanchas Election Rules), 1964 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1964').
2. We have heard Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The post of Sarpanch of village Malibabhulgaon was reserved for Scheduled Caste (female) category. Now it has been changed to Scheduled Caste category. The change in reservation from Scheduled Caste (female) category to Scheduled Caste category is made because no SC (female) candidate available in the said Grampanchayat as a 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:15:35 ::: 2 968-wp 4423-2021.odt member. The petitioners are not elected from SC category, nor they claim to belong to SC category.
4. Rule 4 of Rules of 1964 Rules provides that if a female candidate of SC category is not available, the said seat would go to SC category. The presumption would be in favour of the validity of the rule unless set aside.
5. The learned A.G.P. accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Kadethankar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No. 5.
6. At the request of the respondents, stand over to 16.06.2021.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
2 of 2
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:15:35 :::