-@<S) <s<\<^ c.-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATL1RE AT BItASPt)R{CHHATnSGARH) _^^-^7:_ WRITPETm€)NNO. /WOJ^ PETITIONER ....•f'-"^?. ^e^ ^' '\°^w\ ^yc^'>^ ^'^..^"A^ »6ttft ^'" RESPONDEH1S GC ,A n- K, Sajj, S/o. Late G. Kunjappy, Aged about 40 yea^ Brsnch Socretary, Bhartiya CommuRlst Rsrty oflndla, Branch Kjranduf, R/o. Old D/S. 352, P.0. Kirandul^ DistrictSouth Bastar, Oantewada (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1) Stafce ofChhaffisgarh, Tlirough Its Secnefcary, Genera! Admtrostfayon Etepartment, Town & Coyntry Planning, D.K.S. Bhawan Ralpur. n~ 2} Tlie CotlKtDr, South Bastar Oatewada (C.G.) 3) Sub Dwisjonat Officer (Revenue) / Admjnisfciafcor Nagar Ralifca ^risad, Kirandut, Distrlct Soufh Bastar, DantBwada. (C.G.) ^ 4) ChteFMunidpai Officer, Kirsndyf, Disbict South Bastar, Dsntewacb (C.G.) PETmON UNOER ARTECLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTnunON OF INDIA PQR ISSUANCE OF APPROWIATE WRITS, DIRECnONS AND/OR OROERS XI-HC-22 ~^^k v^m^<^ g^-gs^ftw^, fa^iTO^: WW^^WiW ^.^^........'W^ 200? ^I^'TO f^iPR'^gR^II S^^llct3' tll^^ 3^?Ti ^^TW^rfpT1 <=hli4idili1rt< ^W^ ^ ft'^'^^^' ^r'3??f^m^i^t 4-11-2004 On a mention being made, thc cJQ^e is taken up for hearing. Shri S.C. Vermo, coun^el fort^ Shri N. K. A9rawa!, Dej Stat&/re5pondents 1 to 3. 5hri Sanjoy K. Ayaw^, coun^ei @ petjtioner. )uty Advocate ©eneral for the for re^pondent No<4. The petitioner has preferred 1^iis petition under Articie 226/227 of the Con^titution of India quegtioning the correctnesfi and l@9aJity of the order dated 1st September 2004 (Ar^nxure-P/l) pa^sed by the Cotlector, whereby the Coll&ctor, Dantewada h<|s reserved 3 seats/vyords for SC, 4 ^eaWward^ for ST and 5 seai's/^rds for OBC cafe9ory in Kirandul Municipa! Councii for the ensuing 2004|IMunicipQl CounciS Elections. L^arned counsel for th@ peti|ion€r, whiie makin9 his submi^sions, submitted thctt other polnts rateed by| the petition, he is not pressing for t^ Ruie 4 of Medhya Prciclesh Municipa^ Reservation) Ruie 1994 (hereinafterl envi^a9@g t^1at m t^@ ^ub^equent elec^ wii! be appjjed ^hich was applied for th| hi^ orgument^, h©^ubmitted thot in t| reseryed for OBC whereas, this time the petitioner in paras 5.4 and 5.6 of le ^ame. He further submitted that Council (SC, ST, OBC and Women referred to as 'the Rules, 1994') ion^ ^ome procedure for regervation ^ first time under Rule3. Elcboratjng |ie year 1999 elections 3 ^eot^ were yide impugned order the Collector, DantewQda hos reseryed 5 seat5 for OpC. According to him, this is contrary to th©^pirit of th@ Rule 4, a^ in the p ^ior elections 3 ^eats wer©re^erved + r-Z XI-HC-22 ^^p^r R^^3^?i ^pf^f^i' 'yi^a; bwn» ~S^> 'r^^Wy[^ ^.-SRftWI^,, iwiw^" 3i^ff qaijch ^P^HI ^^Wsh) "W^ 2003 ^f^^i ^^nm<r <1%^3 -^-" for OBC, therefore^ in vi©wof Rule have reserved only 3 secsts this tSme. Wh&reas, iBarned beputy Adv| pre^cribe^ that accordin9 to the p@r^< seats will be reserved for them. Accl rt<ss@rvQtion of seats for SC/ST coml case, 25% of The total seats ar-e To be| Having heard learned counsel f^ (2) of Rule-3/ peru^al of thi^ ruk ^ 5C/5T are 507o or less than totol sea\ 25% sea^s of th@ total ^eots will b@ re^ OBC seats, those seats are to be iden1 seots which are not reserved for SC/t It is an admitted position tha^ Municipa! CounciS are 18 and 257o of (4) of Rule 3 if half or more than hall seats comes, then that will be counte< 18 ^eat^ comes to 4.50. As per sub-ri, tQ+Ql number of ^eat^ for OBC come^ By th©impugned order the Col!e| for OBC, therefore/ in my opinion, incorrectness in the impugned order. I do not find any ^ub^tonce in for the petitioner that durin9 la3t ele^ '^nifep'ft^fWT^f'?1i^<Rn^<r ^F3rt^HT3R^T? +h@ Collec+or, bant@wad<3t ought +o )CQte fienerQi submitted that Rui& 3 ;r^@nta9®of the population of SC/ST, ^rdjng to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 if the ss to 50% or less than 50%, in that ••eserved for OBC. Ir the parties, if we look intosub-rufe low^ that if the re^erved ^eat^ for js, m that case as far as possible near ^rved for OBC and for r@^@rvation of |fied through a draw of }ot out of the total number of seats of Kirandul v^iich comes to 4.50. A^ per sub-ruie of the seot in addifion to the other as one. In the present case 257o of^- te (4) half i^ to be counted as one,. t|o5. ^tor, Dantewada has reserved 5 seats there i^ no iJI@9Qiity, infirmity or •t^e argument^ of the learned counset |tion oniy 3 5eat5 w@r©re^erved for + s a afiaK,;iaBMBi XI-HC-22 Kll^ ^p^T sfr^i^ ^S^ j . Barve + ~s-^ ^l^llM^ ^lli^l^l^ Krai^^^ ^^^ tp^i NirN3clw »^m». "W^ 209) ^i^Tii^iTiw^rfi^n 'l— OBC, therefore, for th@ election 2< reserved for OBC. If the Gpgument ocivQnced by t^ie accepted, then +h@ ^ame will be conl prescribes only procedure. The sam^ @l@ction. It doQS not prescribe thcrtjj same number of seats are to be kej^t election. If by mistake in the preyiops in^teoid of 5 ^@a+3 that docs not 91^0 ri9ht should continue forever. Tharefor®,in view of th@ Qbc|/@, petitlon. The petstion is liable to be |lssmissed the admission stage itself. |)04 only 3 ^eats ou9h+ to hw@ b@en ctii&i(dAnj^iH<?IT ^ K^l!<P»i^< iRn-3?f^n=Ta?i^Tf fie ieorned counsel for the p&titioner is "ary to sub-rule(2) of Rule-3. Rule-4 procedure to be adopted in the next jthe same p@rc@nta9@ i^ to b@ k&pt or |t which were reserved in the previous election 3 OBC seats were reserved to anyone that mi^in+erpretation ^ I do not fincl ony substonce in this cind the same is dismissed at Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fe^ .^