IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1850 of 2009 Anita Chaudhary wife of Sri Som Prakash Tiwary, resident of village Gisara, P.S. & Block, Parsauni District Sitamarhi (Bihar). Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Patna, Bihar. 2. The State Election Commission (Panchayat) through its Secretary, 3rd Floor,Sone Bhawan, Near R. Block Chowk, Patna, Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi at & P.O. & P.s. Dumra, District Sitamarhi (Bihar). 4. The Block Development officer, Block Parsauni at P.O. & P.S. Parasauni District Sitamarhi (Bihar) 5. Upendra Baitha son of Bechan Biatha, Mukhiya of Madanpur Gram Panchayat, Village Madanpur, Dhangar, P.S. Parsauni District Sitamarhi (Bihar) 6. Sri Raghuvir Sah son of Jhoti Sah resident of village Hira Kanhauni Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Parsauni Khirodhar, P.S. Parsauni District Sitamarhi (Bihar) ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Dilip Kumar Mishra, Bindeshar Sah. For Respondent no. 2 : M/S. K. B. Nath & Sanjeev Nikesh For Respondent nos. 1 & 4 : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, A.C. to AAG III -------- 2 26/02/2009 In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is to declare the explanation appended to Section 15(5) of the Bihar Panchayt Raj Act, 2006 to be ultra vires. The explanation sought to be declared ultra vires reads as follows : “For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for the purposes of reservation of offices for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under this sub-section shall commence from the first election held after the commencement of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.” Mr. D. K. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the explanation providing that for applying the principle of rotation for the purposes of reservation of offices for the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes shall commence from the first election - 2 - held after the commencement of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is illegal as according to him the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provided for reservation but the same was declared ultra vires and as such it cannot be considered to be the first election for applying the principle of rotation. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra. The object of explanation, as is well settled, is to clarify and avoid vagueness in the enactment. The legislature in its wisdom thought that for applying the principle of rotation, for the purposes of reservation, it shall commence from the first election held after the commencement of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The legislature, in order to avoid vagueness, can make such explanation and it being competent to do the same the explanation cannot be said to be ultra vires. We do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed in limine. (C. K. Prasad, ACJ.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.) AMIN