JUDGMENT : M. S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners, by instituting the present Petition, seek the following reliefs : “(a) For an order quashing the Impugned Notification bearing Ref. No.3 / 30 / Reservation / GEVP-186 / 2022- 23 / SEC / 3343 dated 01/07/2022 published in Series II No.13 of the Official Gazette, Government of Goa. (b) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to-issue a fresh notification on the subject of "Reservation of seats in Village Panchayats for General Elections to 186 Village Panchayats 2022" after securing compliance with the constitutional mandate of K. Krishna Murthy (supra) and Vikas Gawali (supra) and the statutory mandate of Section 7 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, thereby undertaking reservation of seats in favour of the OBC category in terms of law." 3. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners have a statutory right to insist that the State Election Commission (SEC) provide reservations to Other Backward Classes (OBC). By not providing such reservations, he submits that the SEC has breached this statutory right, as guaranteed by Section 7(5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (said Act). He submits that the impugned Notification dated 1st July 2022, to the extent it does not provide for reservations for OBCs, is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Bhobe submits that the Petitioners and other members of the OBCs cannot be made to suffer for the failure of the Respondents to comply with the "Triple Test" formulated in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & ors. vs. Union of India & anr. – 2010 (7) SCC 202 and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra & ors – 2021 SCC OnLine SC 170. He submits that even now, directions must be issued to the Respondents to comply with the triple test so that the provisions for reservations for OBCs can be made at the Panchayat elections scheduled on 10 th August 2022 in terms of the State Government's Notification dated 30th June 2022 under Rule 10 (1) of the Goa Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat (Election Procedure) Rules, 1996 (said Rules). 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Bhobe submits that the SEC and the State Government should now be directed to postpone the elections to the 186 Panchayats in the State of Goa by some reasonable period within which the Respondents can comply with the triple test. After that, the SEC can proceed with the elections making provisions for reservations for the OBCs. 6. The learned Advocate General submitted that the State neither supports nor opposes the grant of any reliefs in this Petition. He, however, presents that the State will take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum to secure reservations for the OBCs. He submitted that no orders be made in this Petition to prevent the State Government from taking such steps as permissible under the law. Beyond this, the learned Advocate General did not make any further submissions in this Petition. 7. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the SEC, opposed the grant of any reliefs in this Petition. He referred to the recitals in the impugned Notification dated 1st July 2022 and submitted that the SEC had sought data of OBCs from the State Government well in time. He submitted that the State Government failed to provide such data about the OBCs in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Gawali (supra) and Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradeshandanr.–2022 SCC OnLine SC589. He submitted that the SEC, following the law in Suresh Mahajan(supra) and the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E of the Constitution, issued the impugned Notification proposing to proceed with the elections to 186 Panchayats without any provisions for reservations to the OBCs. He, however, submits that the provisions have been made for reservations to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) consistent with the constitutional and statutory provisions. He submits that the SEC will issue the election schedule so that the Polling can take place on 10th August 2022, in terms of the State Government's Notification dated 30th June 2022, issued under Rule 10 of the said Rules. 8. Mr. Joshi submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected reliefs similar to those now sought in this Petition in Suresh Mahajan(supra); therefore, this Petition may be dismissed. 9. Mr. Faldessai, the learned Counsel for OBC Commission (Respondent No.6), submitted that the State Government, vide letter dated 30th June 2022, sought data on OBCs. 8. Mr. Joshi submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected reliefs similar to those now sought in this Petition in Suresh Mahajan(supra); therefore, this Petition may be dismissed. 9. Mr. Faldessai, the learned Counsel for OBC Commission (Respondent No.6), submitted that the State Government, vide letter dated 30th June 2022, sought data on OBCs. He submitted that within three days of receiving this letter, almost 80 per cent of the data was collected by the OBC Commission and the balance data will be available within the next 7-8 days. Therefore, he submitted that the Petitioners should be granted the reliefs they have prayed for in this Petition. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. The term of 186 Panchayats in the State of Goa ended on 18th June 2022. Article 243-E of the Constitution provides that every Panchayat unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Furthermore, Article 243-E (3) provides that an election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1). 12. In Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors. – (2006) 8 SCC 352 and Suresh Mahajan(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the constitutional mandate of holding elections to the Panchayats before the expiry of the period specified in Article 243-E(1) is inviolable. Consequently, neither the State Election Commission, the State Government, nor the State Legislature, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can countenance dispensation to the contrary. 13. Despite the SEC's repeated requests and even after the SEC brought the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Mahajan (supra) to the notice of the State Government, a decision was taken to postpone the Panchayat elections to September 2022. The SEC, at that stage, expressed helplessness to proceed with the elections in the absence of any notification under Rule 10 of the said Rules being issued by the State Government. 14. Sandeep Vazarkar, Patrick Savio Almeida, and others instituted Writ Petitions No.238/2022 and 1365/2022 (f), respectively, questioning the postponement of elections and the defiance of the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Mahajan (supra). 15. 14. Sandeep Vazarkar, Patrick Savio Almeida, and others instituted Writ Petitions No.238/2022 and 1365/2022 (f), respectively, questioning the postponement of elections and the defiance of the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Mahajan (supra). 15. In the above writ petitions, the SEC supported the Petitioners. Still, the State Government opposed the Petitions on the sole ground that holding Panchayat elections would not be conducive during the monsoons. Significantly neither in the returns filed on behalf of the State Government nor in the arguments on behalf of the State Government was any issue raised about the reservations for the OBCs. The State Government urged postponement only on the ground of the monsoons and not because some time was necessary to collect the data or otherwise comply with the triple test formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Krishna Murthy(supra)or VikasGawali (supra). 16. This Court, after considering the reason of monsoons, found that the constitutional mandate coupled with the specific directions in Suresh Mahajan (supra) could not be disregarded based on such a reason. Accordingly, this Court, by its Judgement and Order dated 28th June 2022, directed the State to issue a Notification under Rule 10 of the said Rules within three days and directed the SEC to complete the election process within 45 days. 17. On the following day, i.e., 29th June 2022, the State Government vide Misc. Civil Application No. 1410/2022 (f) and Misc. Civil Application No.1380/2022 (f) applied for an extension of time to hold the elections to the 186 Panchayat. This time, the State Government gave the following two reasons : (a) The scheduling of the Assembly Session (Budget Session) between 11th July 2022 and 12th August 2022; and (b) That Ganesh Chaturthi festivities will commence on 31st August 2022. 18. Again, there was no whisper about the issue of collection of data for reservations to the OBCs. Accordingly, by order dated 30th June 2022, this Court rejected the two misc. Civil applications seeking an extension of time for holding the Panchayat elections. 19. Mr. Faldessai submitted that the State Government, by its letter dated 30th June 2022, sought empirical data on OBCs in the State of Goa. He also submitted that within three days, almost 80 per cent of such data was collected by the OBC Commission, and the balance exercise would be completed within 7-8 days. 19. Mr. Faldessai submitted that the State Government, by its letter dated 30th June 2022, sought empirical data on OBCs in the State of Goa. He also submitted that within three days, almost 80 per cent of such data was collected by the OBC Commission, and the balance exercise would be completed within 7-8 days. 20. The State Government issued the Notification on 30th June 2022 under Rule 10 of the said Rules appointing 10th August 2022 as the date for elections to the 186 Panchayats. On the following day, i.e., 1st July 2022, the SEC issued the impugned Notification concerning the reservation of seats in 186 Village Panchayat scheduled to go to the polls on 10th August 2022. 21. The impugned Notification dated 1st July 2022 provides constitutional reservations to SC/ST. However, no provision is made in the impugned Notification for reservations to the OBCs, because the SEC was not furnished the requisite data after due compliance with the triple test as required by the Constitution Bench. 22. On the issue of reservations to the OBCs, the impugned Notification contains the following recitals : "And whereas, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed a judgment decided on 10-5-2022 in the matter of Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., wherein the Apex Court referred the triple test formality for OBC reservation in local bodies as specified in the Judgment in the matter of Vikash Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra directed that "until the triple test formality is completed "in all respects" by the State Government, no reservation for Other Backward Classes can be provisioned; and if that exercise cannot be completed before the issue of election programme by the State Election Commission, the seats (except reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which is a constitutional requirement), the rest of the seats must be notified as for the General Category". And whereas, the Goa State Election Commission, requested the State Government to provide the data with regards to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in compliance with-the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. And whereas, the Commission vide its file dated 16/05/2022 submitted the reservation proposal to State Government for consultation and for comments if any. The State Government returned back the reservation proposals of 186 Village Panchayats to the Commission after completing the consultation process on 26-05-2022. And whereas, the Commission vide its file dated 16/05/2022 submitted the reservation proposal to State Government for consultation and for comments if any. The State Government returned back the reservation proposals of 186 Village Panchayats to the Commission after completing the consultation process on 26-05-2022. And where as, the State Government has not provided the data with regards to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court till date. And whereas, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in WP 238/2022 and MCA No. 1380/2022(F) with W.P. No. 1365/2022(F) has given a mandate of completing the process of said Election within 45 days and that the Government of Goa has notified the date of Polling for the said Elections as 10th August, 2022; and it is imperative to ensure that reasonable time is given to electors after notifying the reservation of seats on the basis of communities as required. And whereas, Supreme Court in above referred order has mandated that the unreserved seats should be treated as General Category and that reasonable time has to be given as mentioned above. Now Therefore, State Election Commission is required to notify the reservation of seats for 186 Village Panchayats without OBC reservation in absence of such OBC data without complying the triple test formality as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Goa State Election Commission in exercise of the powers conferred upon it do hereby notify reservation of seats in Village Panchayats for General Elections to 185 Village Panchayats 2022 as per the Notification annexed to this order except one Village Panchayat which would be notified in due course. W. V Ramanamurthy, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner (Goa State Election Commission). Panaji, 1st July, 2022." [Emphasis supplied] 23. The Petitioners placed no material to counter what was stated in the above recitals. Instead, the plea was why the Petitioners should suffer for the lapses of the State Government in not collecting the data and complying with the triple test. Thus, from the above, it is quite clear that the State Government did not provide the data with regards to OBCs in complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Gawali (supra) and, therefore, the SEC, again in compliance with the law in Suresh Mahajan (supra), felt obliged to issue the impugned Notification without making any provisions for the reservation to OBCs. 24. 24. In our Judgment, the SEC acted consistently with the law in K.KrishnaMurthy(supra),Vikas Gawali (supra),andSuresh Mahajan (supra) in issuing the impugned Notification. Admittedly, despite the requests, the State Government did not provide the data about the OBCs in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The term of the 186 Panchayats had expired on 18th June 2022, and the State Government and the SEC had already breached the constitutional mandate in Article 243-E by not holding the elections before the said date. As of the date of Notification dated 1st July 2022, there was no compliance with the triple test prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In K. Krishna Murthy (supra), Vikas Gawali (supra),andSureshMahajan(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not approved the action of postponing the elections to collect the empirical data or to comply with the triple test. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate could not be disregarded for such a reason. In the present case, the SEC has gone by the law laid down in SureshMahajan(supra); therefore, the impugned Notification cannot be struck down. 25. In K.KrishnaMurthy(supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions in Articles 243-D(4) and 243-T(4) are only enabling. They do not mandate reservations in favor of the OBCs, but only provide that nothing in Part IX of the Constitution shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or office of Chairperson in the Panchayat at any level in favor of the backward class citizen. 26. The Constitution Bench has further held that the nature and purpose of reservations in the context of local self-government are considerably different from that of higher education and public employment. In this sense, Article 243-D and Article 243-T form a distinct and independent constitutional basis for affirmative action. The principles that have evolved concerning the reservation policies enabled by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be readily applied in the context of local self-government. Even when made, they need not be for a period corresponding to the period of reservation for Articles 15(4) and 16(4) but can be much shorter. 27. The principles that have evolved concerning the reservation policies enabled by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be readily applied in the context of local self-government. Even when made, they need not be for a period corresponding to the period of reservation for Articles 15(4) and 16(4) but can be much shorter. 27. The Constitution Bench further held that before any policy of reservation for OBCs to the local bodies can be implemented, the Authorities must ensure compliance with the following triple test: (a) to set up a dedicated Commission to conduct a contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness qua local bodies, within the State; (b) to specify the proportion of reservation required to be provisioned local body-wise in light of recommendations of the Commission, so as not to fall foul of overbreadth; and (c) in any case such reservation shall not exceed the aggregate of 50 percent of the total seats reserved in favour of S.C.s/S.T.s/OBCs taken together. 28. The Petitioners, as well as the OBC Commission, nowhere assert that the triple test formulated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was complied as of 1st July 2022 when the impugned Notification was issued by the SEC. Their case is that the Panchayat election may be postponed so that such a triple test could be complied with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected an identical contention in SureshMahajan(supra). The Court, in clear terms, held that until the state government completes the triple test formality "inallrespects," no reservation for OBCs can be provided. Suppose that exercise cannot be completed before the issue of election programme by the SEC, the seats (except reserved for the S.C.s and S.T.s which is a constitutional requirement). In that case, the rest of the seats must be notified as for the General Category. The Court held that based on contentions similar to those now urged by the Petitioners and the OBC Commission, the constitutional mandate of the need to observe the triple test procedure could not be disregarded. The Court held that “ The political parties who claim to be the protagonist of participation of OBC in the governance of local bodies, are free to nominate candidates belonging to the OBC category in the concerned constituencies and even against all General seats available after reserving for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. 29. The Court held that “ The political parties who claim to be the protagonist of participation of OBC in the governance of local bodies, are free to nominate candidates belonging to the OBC category in the concerned constituencies and even against all General seats available after reserving for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. 29. In Suresh Mahajan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again reiterated that the process of delimitation work and/or triple test compliance is continuous, complex, time-consuming, and more so without any timeline (directly linked to the expiry of the term of the outgoing elected body). The constitution and the relevant enactments explicitly provide the conduct of elections for installing a newly elected body to take over the reins from the outgoing elected representative whose term had expired. Therefore, the former need not detain the issue of election programme by the SEC in respect of local bodies as and when it becomes due much less overdue. The Court further held that completion of delimitation exercise or be it triple test formality, as the case may be, can wait if not completed well before the expiry of five years term of the outgoing elected body, including giving enough time to the SEC to complete the election process within such time. Thus, the SEC cannot delay the declaration of the election program on that account. For, it would inevitably create a hiatus situation upon expiry of five years term of the outgoing elected body. Such an eventuality needs to be eschewed by all the duty holders. The Court held that “A priori, it is not only a constitutional obligation of the SEC but also the State Government, including the constitutional Courts”. 30. The above observations in SureshMahajan(supra), to our mind, offer a complete answer to the contentions of the Petitioners and the OBC Commission. By granting reliefs now applied for by the Petitioners or supported by the OBC Commission, we would go contrary to the law expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That obviously, we cannot do and will not do. 31. In Vikas Gawali (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the law in K. Krishna Murthy (supra), reiterated the triple test's mandatory nature before providing the reservation for the OBCs in local bodies. That obviously, we cannot do and will not do. 31. In Vikas Gawali (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the law in K. Krishna Murthy (supra), reiterated the triple test's mandatory nature before providing the reservation for the OBCs in local bodies. The Court, upon finding that there was no inquiry, much less contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness by a dedicated Commission established by the State, held that the State Government could not fall back on Section 12(2)(c) of the 1994 Act provisioning reservation for OBCs. The Hon'ble Court held that the provision was enabling and would become functional and operational only upon fulfilling the triple test as specified by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. Such triple test was a sine qua non or the quintessence for exercise of power to reserve seats for OBCs in the local bodies. The exercise of power to reserve seats for OBCs springs from Section 12(2)(c), which is hedged by conditions and limitations specified by the Constitution Bench. The provisions would not get ignited until such time. Accordingly, the Notification issued by the SEC reserving seats for OBCs for local bodies was held to suffer from the vice of functional jurisdictional error. The impugned Notification to the extent it provided for reservation for OBCs in the local bodies concerned was declared void and without law authority. Even the elections based on the impugned Notification were held as vitiated, non-est in the eye of law in the wake of thedeclaration of the law in that regard by the Constitution Bench. Finally, even the contention that such a declaration would impact a large number of seats was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 32. The impugned Notification issued by the SEC in the present case is entirely consistent with the law in Vikas Gawali (supra). Therefore, the relief that the Petitioners seek or the OBC Commission supports would be contrary to the law in K.Krishna Murthy (supra) and Vikas Gawali (supra). 33. The Petitioners, in fact, seek a writ of mandamus to direct the SEC to provide reservations to OBCs for the Election s now scheduled to be held on 10th August 2022. This relief proceeds on the basis that the Petitioners have a "statutory right" to such reservations. Mr. 33. The Petitioners, in fact, seek a writ of mandamus to direct the SEC to provide reservations to OBCs for the Election s now scheduled to be held on 10th August 2022. This relief proceeds on the basis that the Petitioners have a "statutory right" to such reservations. Mr. Bhobe referred to certain observations in Vikas Gawali (supra), where the provision for the reservation to the OBCs has been described as "statutory" as opposed to "constitutional". However, according to us, Mr. Bhobe's contention is not quite well-founded because it reads some observations dehors the context in which they appear. 34. In K. Krishna Murthy (supra) and in Vikas Gawali (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the provisions of Articles 243-D and 243-T are only "enabling." These provisions nowhere mandate reservation for OBCs at local bodies. They only do not prevent the State from making any provision for such reservations. They merely enable the State to provide for such reservations. This is significant because in the absence of a preexisting right, usually, no mandamus can issue. 35. In pursuance of the enabling provision for reservations in Article 243D(6), the State Legislature has made a provision for reservations to OBCs in Panchayats. However, even the State Legislature has not mandated reservation for the OBCs, as is clear from the scheme of Section 7 of the said Act. 36. Section 7 of the said Act reads as follows : “Constitution of Panchayats. (1) A Panchayat shall consist of, such number of members as the Government may, accordance with the following Table: TABLE For Panchayat with a population of Number of m embers Classification 1) 1500 or more but not more than 2000 5 D 2) more than 2000 but not more than 5000 7 C 3) more than 5000 but not more than 8000 9 B 4) more than 8000 11 A (2) All the members of a panchayat shall be elected. (3) The '[State Election Commission in consultation with the Government,] shall divide each Panchayat area into wards the number of which shall be equal to the number of members determined in respect of such Panchayat under sub-section (1). (3) The '[State Election Commission in consultation with the Government,] shall divide each Panchayat area into wards the number of which shall be equal to the number of members determined in respect of such Panchayat under sub-section (1). (4) In every Panchayat, seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the number of seats so reserved shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Panchayat ae population to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat area bears to the total population of the Panchayat area; Provided that "[State Election Commission in) consultation with the Government] may by nonfiction reserve any seat reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes: [Provided further that the '[State Election Commission in consultation with the Government] may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct any Panchayat to co-opt in such manner as may be prescribed, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste where there is a reasonable population of the Scheduled Caste but the reservation may not be made.] (5) The "[State Election Commission in consultation with the Government,] may, by notification reserve such number of seats in any Panchayat as may be considered necessary, taking into account the population of the backward classes in the Panchayat area, for persons belonging to the backward classes. (6) Not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct Election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women: - Provided that the seats reserved under sub-section (4), (5) and (6) shall be allotted by rotation to different wards in the panchayat area: Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes from contesting for elections to any non-reserved ward in such Panchayat. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where two-thirds of the total number of members are required to be elected or have been elected, failure to elect the remaining members shall not affect the constitution of the Panchayat. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where two-thirds of the total number of members are required to be elected or have been elected, failure to elect the remaining members shall not affect the constitution of the Panchayat. (8) The Director shall publish, in the prescribed manner, the names of members elected or deemed to have been duly elected to a Panchayat. [Explanation: In this section, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures of have been published, but where figures of census are not available, the population shall be ascertained from other relevant authenticated records maintained by the Government.]" 37. Section 7(4) provides that seats "shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." Similarly, Section 7(6) provides that "not less than one third of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women." However, Section 7(5) only provides that the State Election Commission, in consultation with the Government, may, by Notification, reserve such number of seats in any Panchayat as may be considered necessary, taking into account the population of the backward classes in the Panchayat area, for persons belonging to the backward classes. 38. Thus, when it comes to reservations of S.C.s/S.T.s or women, the State Legislature has used the expression "shall." However, when it comes to providing reservations for OBCs, the State Legislature has used the word "may." From this, it is quite clear that no constitutional or statutory mandate as such exists to provide reservations to OBCs. The constitutional and statutory provisions are only enabling in nature. In such circumstances, the prayer for a writ of mandamus to direct the SEC to provide reservations to the OBCs cannot be granted. In any case, in the absence of compliance with the triple test formality by the Constitution Bench in K.Krishna Murthy(supra)and reiterated in Vikas Gawali (supra), no mandamus can be issued to the SEC to make provisions for reservations to the OBCs. 39. Mr. Bhobe's contention that the members of OBCs cannot be made to suffer for default on the part of the Authorities is insufficient to direct the Authorities to provide for reservations to the OBCs without complying with the triple test mandated by the Constitution Bench in K. Krishna Murthy (supra) and reiterated in Vikas Gawali (supra). 39. Mr. Bhobe's contention that the members of OBCs cannot be made to suffer for default on the part of the Authorities is insufficient to direct the Authorities to provide for reservations to the OBCs without complying with the triple test mandated by the Constitution Bench in K. Krishna Murthy (supra) and reiterated in Vikas Gawali (supra). The Petitioners and the OBC Commission knew that the Panchayat's term was to end on 18th June 2022. They are presumed to be aware of the constitutional provisions contained in Article 243-E requiring the Authorities to complete the election process before 18th June 2022. However, no steps were taken by the Petitioners calling upon the Authorities to comply with the triple test formulated by the Constitution Bench way back in 2010. 40. Mr. Faldessai, the learned Counsel for the OBC Commission, also could not explain why the Authorities failed to comply with the triple test well before the expiry of the term of the Panchayats on 18th June 2022. The Authorities that now profess to provide for reservation to the OBCs have offered no explanation whatsoever why no steps were taken to comply with the triple test formulated by the Constitution Bench way back in 2010. The Respondents, having faltered in complying with the constitutional prerequisites for OBC reservations, cannot now plead this lapse as an excuse to breach the Constitutional mandate in Article 243E and seek postponement of elections. 41. Mr. Faldessai submitted that the State Government, only on 30th June 2022, called for the data from the OBC Commission. He also submitted that 80 per cent of such data was collected within three days of receipt of the said Government communication dated 30th June 2022 and that the balance data could be collected within 7-8 days. We observe nothing more on this aspect. However, in such circumstances, we cannot accede to the Petitioners' prayers as supported by the OBC Commission for postponement of the elections by a reasonable time to enable compliance with the triple test. The grant of such relief would be contrary to the law in Suresh Mahajan(supra). 42. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this Petition. There shall be no order for costs.