JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J.—This writ petition relates to the election of the Municipal Committee, Nahan, and the grievance made by the petitioner is that the State Government had no authority to pass notification dated 13th December, 1977 reserving three out of the total of thirteen seats of the Municipal Committee for schedule castes. The contention was that sections 10 and 11 of the H. P. Municipal Act, 1968 do not contemplate any such reservation. 2. Sections 10 and 11 find their place in Chapter III which is on the subject of "Committees". Section 10 says that— "There shall be established for each municipality a committee having authority over the municipality and consisting of such number of members not less than five as the State Government may fix in this behalf." It is an admitted position that so far as Nahan is concerned, the number of members of the committee has been fixed by the Government at thirteen. 3. Section 11 of the Act provides that a committee shall consist of such number of elected members as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and contains a proviso that the State Government may nominate to each committee such number as may be fixed, but not exceeding eight, of officials to act as advisers. 4. Pointing out to these two sections, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner than there was no power in the State Government to reserve three of the thirteen seats for schedule castes. Along with the writ petition, Annexure PA is attached which shows that by notification dated 13th December, 1977 the State Government has re-fixed the number of elected members of each municipal committee. This notification purports to have exercised the powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Act. At item No. 10, there is mention of Municipal Committee, Nahan. Against this item, the revised number of total seats mentioned is thirteen and reservation of schedule castes seats is three. 5. The petitioners contention is that neither section 10 nor section 11, under which this notification has been issued, enables the State Government to reserve any seats for schedule castes. 6. It is true that sections 10 and 11 do not specifically enable the State Government to make the reservation in question. 5. The petitioners contention is that neither section 10 nor section 11, under which this notification has been issued, enables the State Government to reserve any seats for schedule castes. 6. It is true that sections 10 and 11 do not specifically enable the State Government to make the reservation in question. It is further clear that none of these sections prohibits the State Government from making any reservation in favour of schedule castes. Under the circumstances, the question is whether power to reserve such seats ii found in any other section of the Act. We find that this power can be traced in section *55 of the Act, which is put in Chapter XI which refers to the subject of "Control". Section 255 enables the State Government to frame forms and rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Relevant portion of section 255 is as under :— "255 (1). The State Government may frame forms for any proceeding of a committee and may make any rules consistent with this Act to carry out the purposes thereof and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, may make rules— (a)…………. (b) as to the division of municipalities into wards, or of the inhabitants into classes, or both ; (c) as to the number of representatives proper for each ward or class." It is obvious from the above provisions of section 255 that the State Government can frame rules to divide the municipalities into wards and also to classify the inhabitants as well as to fix the number of representatives for each ward or class of inhabitants. These rules can be framed for the purposes of the Act and they should not be inconsistent with the specific provisions of the Act. 7. So far as the question of inconsistency of the rules with the provisions of the Act is concerned, we have already noted above that sections 10 and 11, on which the reliance is placed, do not prohibit the framing of rules as regards the classification of the inhabitants. Under the circumstances, the only requirement which is needed to be scrutinised is whether classification of inhabitants can be made under rules framed under section 255 for carrying out any of the purposes of the Act. Under the circumstances, the only requirement which is needed to be scrutinised is whether classification of inhabitants can be made under rules framed under section 255 for carrying out any of the purposes of the Act. In this connection, Shri Nag, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the purpose of the Municipal Act is merely »o secure better administration and therefore the concept of classifying the inhabitants of the municipality into particular categories does not enter into the picture. This contention is not acceptable for the obvious reason that in a body which is elected and which is supposed to represent the inhabitants residing within the jurisdiction of that body, the principle of equitable representation of these inhabitants is inherently involved. An elected body means a representative body, and no representation is proper unless it is equitable. Therefore, one of the inherent purposes of every elected body is to secure proper and equitable representation of the persons concerned. What the State Government has done by issuing the notification Annexure PA is to secure equitable representation of the weaker section of the society, namely, schedule castes. If this section of the society is asked to contest the general seats, it is very likely that on account of its social weakness it may not be able to secure any representation. It is with this idea in mind that the Slate Government has untilised its powers under section ii5 (1) (b) and (c) to see to it that certain number of seats stand reserved for schedule castes. Under the circumstances, it is not correct to say that securing the representation of a particular weaker section of the society in the Municipal Committee, which is an elected body, is not one of the purposes of the Act. 8. It was further contended by Shri Nag that schedule caste cannot be treated as a class of inhabitants. It is difficult to understand the correctness of this proposition. Members of the schedule castes have particular common traits in their financial and social status and it is only for that purpose that even the Constitution has provided certain safe-guards for this section of the society. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the members of the schedule castes can legitimately form a class of inhabitants. 9. Members of the schedule castes have particular common traits in their financial and social status and it is only for that purpose that even the Constitution has provided certain safe-guards for this section of the society. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the members of the schedule castes can legitimately form a class of inhabitants. 9. In view of what is stated above, it was open to the State Government to frame suitable rule under section 255 (1) (b) and (c) to give proper representation to the members of the schedule castes by reserving three seats for them. 10. It is, of course, true that the impugned notification dated 13th December, 1977 (Annexure PA) seeks to derive the power from sections 10 and 11 of the Act. But the non mention of section 25i in that notification is not, in any manner, fatal because the power in question is clearly traceable to that section. 11. In these circumstances, we see no force in this writ petition which is summarily dismissed. C. M. P. No. 849 of 1978. The interim order which is granted stands automatically discharged. 12. "Dasti" on usual terms. Petition dismissed.