Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 57 (MP)

Sukhiya Lodhi v. State of M. P.

2012-01-12

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2012
Judgment Ajit Singh, J.- The petitioner is a resident of Village Kota-I, Tahsil Nowgaon, District Satna. Earlier he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kota-I. He, by this petition filed as a public interest litigation, has challenged the reservation of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kota-I for scheduled tribes. 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh has enacted the Madhya Pradesh (Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj) Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, "the Adhiniyam"). Its section 10 provides for the establishment of gram panchayat, janpad panchayat and zila panchayat and section 17 deals with the election of Sarpanch and UpSarpanch in every gram panchayats. Section 17 also provides for the reservation of seats of Sarpanchas of gram panchayats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by rotation in the prescribed manner. 3. Subsection (4) of section 17 of the Adhiniyam, which is relevant for the decision of this petition, reads as under: "17. Election of Sarpanch and UpSarpanch. (4) The seats reserved under this section shall be allotted by the prescribed authority in the Gram Panchayat within the block by rotation in the prescribed manner: Provided that the Gram Panchayat which has no population of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes, shall be excluded for allotment of seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes, as the case may be." 4. Relying upon the above quoted proviso to subsection (4) of section 17 it is submitted by the petitioner that since the population of scheduled tribe in Gram Panchayat Kota-I is only two, the reservation of the seat of Sarpanch for scheduled tribes is illegal. According to the petitioner, only respondent no.4 Amarnath Kol and his wife respondent no.5 Rani are members of the scheduled tribe in the village and this being the situation, the population of scheduled tribes in Gram Panchayat Kota-I ought to have been treated as "no population" because the election of respondent no.5 as Sarpanch was in reality no election and the post of Sarpanch has been virtually gifted to her. 5. The State, in its return, has justified the reservation of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kota-I for scheduled tribes and also the election of respondent no.4 as Sarpanch. The State Government has also submitted that the population of two persons of scheduled tribe in a gram panchayat cannot be treated as no population of scheduled tribes. 6. 5. The State, in its return, has justified the reservation of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kota-I for scheduled tribes and also the election of respondent no.4 as Sarpanch. The State Government has also submitted that the population of two persons of scheduled tribe in a gram panchayat cannot be treated as no population of scheduled tribes. 6. The expression "no population" in the proviso to subsection (4) of section 17 of the Adhiniyam does not cover a case where husband and wife belonging to scheduled tribe live in the same gram panchayat. Husband and wife constitute two persons residing in the gram panchayat and the possibility of both contesting for the post of Sarpanch cannot be ruled out. The voters are the villagers residing in the gram panchayat and in case of both husband and wife contesting the election, they can vote either. Therefore, the reservation under challenge as well as the election of respondent no.5 cannot be held to be force and was justified under the law. 7. We find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.