IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8352 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 07,2010 Ghanshyam Dass .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned notification dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) and press-note dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) issued by Administrator, Municipal Committee, Punhana (respondent No.4 herein). Brief factual background of the case is that petitioner is a resident of Punhana and Harijan by caste. He is aggrieved by action of the respondents in reserving only one ward out of total thirteen for the Scheduled Caste candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that reservation has been made on the basis of census conducted in 2001. According to him, the population ratio has not been kept in view while reserving the wards of the Municipal Committee for various categories. Learned counsel has submitted that out of 13 wards in Municipal Committee, C.W.P. No.8352 of 2010 - 2 - Punhana, only one ward has been reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, which is against the population ratio even according to 2001 census. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book of the case. The only ground of challenge in the petition is that according to 2001 census, more than one seat would fall in the category of Scheduled Caste. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring any document on record to show that more than one seat should have been reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates in election to Municipal Committee, Punhana. The question of reservation on the basis of population is a question of fact. Petitioner has not been able to show that decision to reserve one seat was not arrived at correctly. It is not possible for this court to adjudicate the same in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is totally misconceived. The same is, thus, dismissed. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. May 07, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2