1 wp6885-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6885 OF 2010 Vivek Murlidhar Late ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for the petitioner. Mr.V.S. Gokhale for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye for respondent no.5. CORAM : B.H. Marlapalle, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 12th October 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr.Sakhare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gokhale, the learned AGP. Mr.Shetye appears for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner sought to challenge the declaration made by the Additional District Collector by his order dated 6th July 2010 for the reservation for the post of Sarpanch (OBC – women) and for the elections scheduled in the month of September­October, 2010. It was contended that in the elections held in 1995, the post of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Umbraj was reserved for OBC – Woman and by drawing lots. In the next 2 wp6885-10 election held in the year 2000, post of Sarpanch was reserved for woman from General Category. In the third election held in the year 2005, the post of Sarpanch was not reserved. As per the impugned order dated 6th July 2010, the post of Sarpanch of this Village Panchayat came to be reserved for OBC – woman and the petitioner sought to challenge the same by contending that the post of Sarpanch could not have been reserved for woman. 3. Shri V.B. Joshi, the Tahasildar, Karad filed affidavit­in­reply and submitted that out of 194 total seats of Village Panchayat members in Karad Taluka, 52 seats came to be reserved for OBC (27 per cent). Names of these 52 villages are listed in annexure – 5 to the affidavit­in­reply and these lots were drawn on 31st May 2010. Subsequently, the lots for reservation for women were drawn on 6th July 2010 and 1/3rd of 52 seats of Sarpanch were required to be reserved for women. As per the Collector, Satara, it appears that this 1/3rd figure came to 18 and, therefore, in the lots drawn 18 seats came to be reserved for women for the post of Sarpanch. 4. We have gone through the scheme of Section 10 as well as Section 30 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. However, it has been pointed out by Mr.Gokhale that at this point of time, though there appears to be an error apparent on the face of record while drawing the lots for reservation for OBC – women for the post of Sarpanch, the said mistake cannot be corrected now on account of the fact that the elections for the post 3 wp6885-10 of Sarpanch have already been held in the last month in at least seven Village Panchayats out of 18 reserved for OBC – women. 5. We find merit in these submissions and shifting of reservation for the post of Sarpanch for OBC – woman cannot be done at this point of time on the basis of the agreed mistakes. 6. Hence, it would not be proper to interfere and grant relief to the petitioner at this stage, and solely on the ground of intervening events. The petition is rejected. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle, J.)