Bombay High Court Quashes Reservation Notification for Sarpanch Posts Exceeding 50% Limit in Nagpur District. Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in Gram Panchayat Sarpanch Elections Cannot Exceed 50% of Total Posts as per Section 30(4)(a) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 153
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Gunwanta s/o Pundlik Kale, was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda in September 2018 for a five-year term. On 5 March 2020, the Rural Development Department issued a notification under Rule 2A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Elections Rules, 1964, prescribing reservation for Sarpanch offices across Maharashtra for 24,972 Gram Panchayats. For Nagpur District, out of 768 Gram Panchayats, 437 posts were reserved for Backward Classes and 331 for the Open category. On 25 November 2020, the Collector issued a notification under Rule 2A(3) and (4) specifying reservation for the period 2020-2025 based on the 2011 census. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 19 July 2023 challenging the reservation as exceeding the 50% limit under Section 30(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. Subsequently, on 3 October 2023, the State Election Commission issued an order notifying elections for Gram Panchayats, including Jalalkheda, which the petitioner also challenged by amendment. The petitioner argued that Section 30(4)(a) mandates that the number of reserved offices of Sarpanch shall not exceed 50% of the total offices, and the reservation of 437 out of 768 posts (56.9%) violated this limit. The respondents contended that the 50% limit applies to the State as a whole, not to each district, and that the reservation was valid. The court analyzed Section 30(4)(a) and Rule 2A, noting that the provision uses the word 'shall' and is mandatory. The court held that the limit applies to each district and the State collectively, and the reservation in Nagpur District exceeded the permissible limit. The court quashed the notifications dated 5 March 2020 and 25 November 2020 to the extent they reserved 437 posts, and directed the authorities to rework the reservation to ensure it does not exceed 50% of the total posts in Nagpur District. The court also quashed the election notification dated 3 October 2023 for Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda and directed that fresh elections be held after reworking reservation. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Local Bodies - Limit on Reservation - Section 30(4)(a) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court considered whether reservation for Sarpanch posts exceeding 50% of total posts is permissible. The court held that Section 30(4)(a) mandates that the number of reserved offices of Sarpanch shall not exceed 50% of the total number of offices of Sarpanch in the State. The notification reserving 437 out of 768 posts (56.9%) in Nagpur District was quashed as it violated the statutory limit. (Paras 2-10)

B) Statutory Interpretation - Mandatory Provision - Section 30(4)(a) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court interpreted the phrase 'shall not exceed' as a mandatory prohibition. The court rejected the argument that the limit applies only to the State as a whole, holding that the provision applies to each district and the State collectively. The court directed the authorities to rework reservation to comply with the 50% limit. (Paras 7-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reservation provided for the offices of Sarpanchas in Nagpur District, which reserved 437 out of 768 posts (exceeding 50%), is valid under Section 30(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition. The notifications dated 05.03.2020 and 25.11.2020 were quashed to the extent they reserved 437 posts of Sarpanch in Nagpur District. The election notification dated 03.10.2023 for Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda was also quashed. The respondents were directed to rework the reservation to ensure it does not exceed 50% of the total posts in Nagpur District and to hold fresh elections accordingly. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Reservation for offices of Sarpanch cannot exceed 50% of total posts
  • Section 30(4)(a) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
  • 1959
  • Rule 2A of Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Elections Rules
  • 1964
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 203

WRIT PETITION NO. 4671 OF 2023

2023-10-10

A.S. Chandurkar, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi

2023:BHC-NAG:14808-DB

Shri Akshay A. Naik, Shri R.S. Kalangiwale, Shri N. P. Mehta, Shri J. B. Kasat

Gunwanta s/o Pundlik Kale

State of Maharashtra, The Collector, The State Election Commission Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging reservation notifications for Sarpanch posts in Nagpur District as exceeding the statutory limit of 50%.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notifications dated 05.03.2020 and 25.11.2020 reserving 437 out of 768 Sarpanch posts in Nagpur District, and quashing of election notification dated 03.10.2023 for Gram Panchayat Jalalkheda.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, a sitting Sarpanch, alleged that the reservation of 437 posts out of 768 (56.9%) violated Section 30(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which mandates that reserved offices shall not exceed 50% of total offices.

Issues

Whether the reservation of 437 out of 768 Sarpanch posts in Nagpur District violates Section 30(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which limits reservation to 50% of total posts. Whether the 50% limit applies to each district or only to the State as a whole.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Section 30(4)(a) mandates that the number of reserved offices of Sarpanch shall not exceed 50% of the total number of offices of Sarpanch in the State. The reservation of 437 out of 768 posts (56.9%) in Nagpur District violates this limit. The limit applies to each district and the State collectively. Respondents: The 50% limit applies to the State as a whole, not to each district. The reservation is valid as it is based on population proportion and complies with constitutional mandates.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 30(4)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, read with Rule 2A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Elections Rules, 1964, mandates that the number of reserved offices of Sarpanch shall not exceed 50% of the total number of offices of Sarpanch in the State. This limit applies to each district and the State collectively. Any reservation exceeding 50% is ultra vires the statute and must be quashed.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with regard to reservation in the Offices of Sarpanchas being provided in a manner that exceeds the limit permitted under the Statute and the law in that regard. As per the provisions of Section 30(4)(a), it was submitted that the number of offices of Sarpanch reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall not exceed 50% of the total number of offices of Sarpanch in the State. The court held that the limit of 50% applies to each district and the State collectively, and the reservation of 437 out of 768 posts in Nagpur District exceeded the permissible limit.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4671 of 2023 on 19 July 2023 challenging the reservation notifications dated 05.03.2020 and 25.11.2020. After filing, the State Election Commission issued an election notification on 03.10.2023, which the petitioner challenged by amendment. The court heard arguments on 06.10.2023 and pronounced judgment on 10.10.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Sections 10, 11, 30, 30(4)(a)
  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Elections Rules, 1964: Rule 2A, Rule 2A(2), Rule 2A(3), Rule 2A(4)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Validity of Central Government Notification Under NDPS Act in Reference Under Section 395 Cr.P.C. — Notification Dated 18.11.2009 Under Section 36A(1)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Empowering Special Judge to Take Cognizance ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Quashing of FIR in Cow Slaughter Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Consumption. No Offence Under Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 Made Out as Meat Was Not Proven to Be Cow Flesh.