Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Shah desired us to take into consideration certain specific dates and the dates to which he drew our attention can be enlisted as follows;

24.04.1993. Part IX of the Constitution of India came into force.

30.10.1996. Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules 1996.

24.12.1996. PESA came into force.

03.01.1997. Amendment to ZPPS Act (Sections 12(2)(b) and 58 (1-B)(b) came into force, initially by way of Ordinance I of 1997 and then by amendment to the Act.

. It was submitted that in view of Article 243-M read with Article 244(1) and Fifth Schedule, Part IX of the Constitution would not apply to the Areas declared as Scheduled Area, by Presidential order of 1985 (Exh.B). The Central legislation (PESA) is the only legislation that can govern the Scheduled Area for the purpose of Panchayati Raj and reservation ought to be in accordance with Section 4(g) of PESA. The Election Commission, according to learned Senior Counsel Shri Shah, seems to plead that it follows 1996 Rules, due to judgment in Writ Petition No.5386 fo 2006, delivered by this Court on 3.10.2006. But, rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Z.P and P.S. (amendment and rotation of reservation of seats) Rules 1996 (henceforth referred to as "the 1996 Rules" for brevity's sake), is in conflict with Section 4(g) of PESA, since the said rule restricts only one reservation per block, by rotation, whereas PESA neither recommends rotation nor reservation of only one seat per block, which may cause at times, only 50 per cent seats for S.T., although population of ST is more than 50 per cent as compared to total population of the block.

. In the reply on behalf of the State Election Commission, filed by Shri Rajiv Pandey, it is contended that the State Election Commission is not responsible for implementing the provisions of PESA. The responsibility of putting forth a proposal before the Maharashtra State Legislature for implementation of the said Act, is with the Rural Development Department of the State Government. The Election Commission has implemented the order passed by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5386 of 2006, wherein this Court had directed that the policy of rotation in reservation of seats has to be followed. By decision in Writ Petition No.6389 of 2006 and five other writ petitions, this court has also directed the Election Commission to devise suitable modalities under its powers to give true effect and meaning to the rotation policy as envisaged in the constitutional scheme and the 1996 Rules. Elections of 27 Zilla Parishads in the State are completed in the year 2007.

The modifications, indicated hereinabove; are contained in two provisos. However, it may not be possible to say that 'rotation' and 'one-third reservation for women' are deleted as 'exceptions'.

'exceptions' If the Parliament intended that 'rotation' and 'one-third reservation for women' amongst reserved seats or amongst total number of seats should not apply, it could have expressly said so in clause (g) of Section 4 of PESA. We are of a considered view that silence in Section 4(g) of PESA, regarding 'rotation' and 'reservation for women' does not amount to 'exception' to the applicability of those, as prescribed by Article 243-D, also to the Scheduled Areas, once Part IX is extended to the Scheduled Areas, by PESA.