Manjinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners, who were elected as Panches of Village Gram Panchayat Gehri, Block Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification (Corrigendum) dated

15.5.2008 (Annexure P2) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, whereby the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat has been changed from Scheduled Caste category to General Category, by amending the earlier notification dated 8.5.2008(Annexure P1). It is the case of the petitioners that they have been elected as C.W.P. No. 10409 of 2008 -2- Panches against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category by securing 217, 166 and 149 votes, respectively. It is further the case of the petitioners that further Corrigendum dated 15.5.2008 was issued with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners from contesting the election for the office of Sarpanch. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1,2 and 4, it has been stated that the aforesaid Corrigendum was issued in order to bring the reservation in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') read with Rule 3 and 6 of the Punjab Reservation for the Offices of Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats and Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1994.

It has been further stated that in the year 2003, the office of Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat Gehri was reserved for Scheduled Caste, therefore, this time the office of Sarpanch of this village was to be allotted for General Category. But when by mistake the office of Village Gram Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled Caste, then on a representation received by a number of residents of the village in this regard, the aforesaid Corrigendum was issued and the reservation of the office of Sarpanch was earmarked for General Category. This factual position has not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners argued that once the Deputy Commissioner had finalized the reservation as per Section 12 of the Act and notification issued, then subsequently the said reservation could not be changed. C.W.P. No. 10409 of 2008 -3- We do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners.

It is undisputed that in the year 2008, the reservation has been made block-wise, as per amended Rules, and, therefore, the roster has to be re-drawn. If a mistake has been committed in the first instance and the reservation was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, then in that situation there is no bar in changing the reservation of the office of Sarpanch from Scheduled Caste to General before the election. It is also not the case of the petitioners that by changing the reservation of the office of Sarpanch from Scheduled Caste to General, the percentage of reservation of the office of Sarpanch for Scheduled Caste, as required under Section 12 of the Act, has been reduced in Block Jandiala Guru. During the course of hearing, it has been stated that the election of Sarpanch has already taken place and one Panch belonging to General Category has been elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. In view of the undisputed facts, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned Corrigendum. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 26, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE