CWP No. 3050 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 3050 of 2010 Date of decision: February 19,2010 Anil Kumar and another ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr.S.K.Biriwal, Advocate for the Petitioner. ... Rajan Gupta,J. The petitioners herein have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to reserve seats for reserved category candidates in 35 wards of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad; alternatively it has been prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to decide representation Annexure P-1 and P-2 preferred by the petitioners. It has been averred in the petition that prior to the year 2005, there were 25 wards in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. In 2005, however, number of wards were enhanced from 25 to 35. Certain objections were raised at that time and it was demanded that wards meant for reserved category be also increased proportionately. However, only 3 wards were reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidates. A representation was thus made CWP No. 3050 of 2010 2 for increasing the number of wards for reserved category. However, no action was taken thereon. Thereafter, an application was moved under the Right to Information Act by husband of petitioner No.2. A reply was received from the Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad wherein it was stated as follows:- “ As per Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, the population of voters minimum/maximum is not the base for creating a ward but a ward is created on the basis of population of 25000 persons approximately. At present, M.C.F. Ward No. 2, 13 and 18 are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Ward No. 23 and 35 for Backward Classes and Ward No.1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 35 are for women and remaining wards are for General.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that reservation for the wards is not in consonance with population of the area.According to him, after census of year 2001, there had been an increase in population. Though number of wards were enhanced from 25 to 35, but the reservation was not done proportionately. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In letter Annexure P-6 whereby information was supplied by the Corporation, details of the wards which were reserved for various categories has been given. The details of reservation has been stated therein. It appears that three wards have been kept reserved for scheduled castes, CWP No. 3050 of 2010 3 two for backward classes, 12 for women and remaining wards are in the general category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the reservation as stated in letter Annexure P-6. There is no prayer in the petition for setting aside the reservation s made by the corporation. It has only been prayed that a direction be issued to make appropriate reservation, alternatively the respondents may decide representations Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 preferred by the petitioners. I am of the considered view that this prayer is misconceived. It has not been shown as to how reservation is not in accordance with law. I thus find no merit in this petition. The submissions made by the counsel are devoid of force. Thus the petition is hereby dismissed. February 19,2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) nk JUDGE