Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 21 (RAJ)

Subhash Chand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-05

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Subhash Chand Saini inter alia with the prayer that order dated 17.12.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Surajgarh, reserving post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dalmiya Ki Dhani for Scheduled Caste, be quashed and set aside being illegal. 2. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Notification dated 05.11.2014, whereby fresh determination was made with respect to boundaries of the Gram Panchayats and new Gram Panchayats were also formed. It is submitted that earlier Gram Panchayat Aduka was constituted of four villages namely Aduka, Dalmiya Ki Dhani, Brahminon Ki Dhani and Chouhano Ki Dhani and in the roster of the year 2010, it was reserved for Scheduled Caste, but now this Gram Panchayat was divided into two parts. Dalmiya Ki Dhani was constituted as fresh Gram Panchayat with Dalmiya Ki Dhani and Chauhano Ki Dhani as part thereof. Aduka was retained as independent Gram Panchayat with Brahamano Ki Dhani as part thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since in the earlier roster Gram Panchayat Aduka, as a whole, was reserved for Scheduled Caste, therefore, Dalmiya Ki Dhani, entire population of which was earlier part of Gram Panchayat Aduka, could not be again reserved for Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the respondents earlier issued clarification in respect of a query made by District Collector, Bundi vide communication dated 12.12.2014 and by District Collector, Churu, but now the respondents have issued contrary guidelines in fresh communication dated 20.12.2014 and Gram Panchayat Dalmiya Ki Dhani has wrongly been reserved for Scheduled Caste. 3. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Elections Rules, 1994 and submitted that according to that rule, especially it's sub-rule (1), all the gram panchayats would be arranged in the order of population of Scheduled Caste in descending order and would be serially included in the lottery of reservation for the purpose of election. So far as Gram Panchayat Dalmiya Ki Dhani is concerned, it is a newly constituted Gram Panchayat and it has to be included in the roster afresh which is evident from the clarification dated 08.12.2014 issued by the respondents(Annexure-R/1). 4. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. So far as Gram Panchayat Dalmiya Ki Dhani is concerned, it is a newly constituted Gram Panchayat and it has to be included in the roster afresh which is evident from the clarification dated 08.12.2014 issued by the respondents(Annexure-R/1). 4. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 both have submitted that the impugned order falls within the purview of delimitation notification attracting provisions of Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in the present case process of election has already commenced with the notification of election having been issued by the Respondent No. 4, State Election Commission on 03.01.2015. Learned counsels in support of their arguments have relied upon the decision dated 18.12.2014 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12960/2014 decided along with 93 other writ petitions) and decision dated 05.03.2009 rendered by this Court in the case of Kedar Nath Gupta v. State & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2579/2009 decided along with 3 other connected writ petitions). 5. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Magna Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., WLC (Raj.) 2004 (4) 347 has held that Article 243-O (a) of the Constitution of India does not bar jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, present writ petition ought to be entertained. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as well as aforesaid decisions, I find that once the notification of election has been issued on 03.01.2015, jurisdiction of this Court would stand excluded to entertain the writ petition against the process of election. This Court in Kedar Nath Gupta(supra) has dealt with similar arguments, albeit in the context of Municipal election. Provision, similar to Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, contained in Clause (b) of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India in respect of the election to any municipality, was considered therein. This Court in Kedar Nath Gupta(supra) has dealt with similar arguments, albeit in the context of Municipal election. Provision, similar to Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, contained in Clause (b) of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India in respect of the election to any municipality, was considered therein. This Court, while relying upon the decision rendered by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt. & Ors., AIR (39) 1952 SC 64 and various other judgments held that process of election having commenced, this Court would not entertain the writ petition questioning the correctness of the process of election. 7. Decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Magna Ram(supra) cannot be said to have laid down good law in view of the various judgments of the Supreme Court. Besides, the aforesaid judgment was rendered in different fact situation referred to above that whether right to contest election is not statutory right and, therefore, would be regulated by the terms of the statute. It is Section 117 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which is verbatim incorporated in Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India which is also similar to Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India with regard to which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has already held that challenge to election process through writ petition is not permissible even on the ground of non-compliance of statutory provisions, if the Statute provides for exclusive jurisdiction to the District Judge empowered to determine the material effect of such non-compliance and that no litigative enterprise in the High Court or other Court should be allowed to held up the on-going electoral process. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, thus, completely puts a bar on litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its officers for carrying forward the process of election to its culmination in the formal declaration of the result. 8. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.