IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12456 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 27.11.2008 Arjan Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Lamdharia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for respondents No.5, 6, 8 and 10. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby reservation of the members of Gram Panchayat, Village Gill, Tehsil and District Amritsar, has been made under Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). As per the said notification, out of 5 Panches, 2 seats were reserved for women and 3 seats were meant for General category. CWP No. 12456 of 2008 -2- It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid Village, more than 100 voters, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category are residing and in spite of that fact, no seat was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. In the written statement, a definite stand has been taken that the aforesaid reservation under Section 11 of the Act was made on the basis of the population shown in the census report of 2001. According to the said report, out of the total population of 586 in the village, only 25 persons belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. Since the population of the Scheduled Caste in the village was only 5%, therefore, no seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the voter list of 1988, more than 65 persons were shown as voters belonging to the Scheduled Caste. He further argued that in the elections held during the year 2003, one seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. However, in the written statement itself, it has been admitted that in the census report of 2001, out of total population of 586, only 25 persons have been shown to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. In view of the aforesaid factual position and keeping in view the definition of `population' given in Section 2 (zn) of the Act, reservation under section 11 of the Act for different categories is to be made only on the basis of figures of population given in the census report of 2001, which has been made in the present case. As far as reservation of one seat in the elections held in the year 2003 is concerned, it has been stated by counsel CWP No. 12456 of 2008 -3- for the respondents that the said reservation was made on the basis of the census report of 1991, because at that time, the census report of 2001 was not available. Thus, this factor will have no bearing on the controversy. Similarly, the figure shown in the voter list of 1988 will also not help the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the voter list of 2007, there are 125 voters belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Even this fact will not help the petitioner, because reservation under Section 11 of the Act is not to be made on the basis of current population of the village, but on the basis of population as mentioned in the last census report. Moreover, this petition has been filed by the petitioner after holding of the election of Sarpanch. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned notification. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 27, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE