IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11648 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 12.11.2008 Gurbinder 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. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who contested the elections of Gram Panchayat, Village Dilwalpur, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran, held on 22.6.2008 and was declared defeated, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification 22.5.2008 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), reserving one seat of Panch, each for General, Women, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste (Women) and Backward Class categories, by making amendment in the earlier notification, whereby 2 seats were reserved for General category, one each CWP No. 11648 of 2008 -2- for Women, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Caste (Women) and no seat was reserved for Backward Class category. Short reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record and its copy has been handed over to counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the start of the election process and when, particularly election was going to be held on 26.5.2008, the Deputy Commissioner should not have changed the reservation by issuing amended notification. He further submits that as per the census report of the year 2001, no population figure has been given with regard to the Backward Class category. Therefore, the reservation which was to be made according to the population shown in the last census report i.e. for the year 2001, one seat should not have been reserved for Backward Class category. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the mistake in the reservation was detected, the same was corrected by issuing the amended notification, as in village Dilwalpur, out of the total population of 880, there are 180 persons belonging to the Backward Class category. Therefore, as per Section 11 of the Act, if population of the Backward Class category in a village is more than 20% of the total population of the Gram Sabha area, then one seat of Panch in the Gram Panchayat is to be reserved for Backward Class category. Since the amended notification was issued on 22.5.2008, therefore, the elections were countermanded and subsequently, CWP No. 11648 of 2008 -3- held on 22.6.2008, in which the petitioner contested and was declared defeated. Learned counsel further submits that in the earlier elections, which were held in the year 2003, reservation of the Panches was made on the basis of the census report of 1991, as by that time, the census report of 2001 was not available. He further submits that as far as the census report of 2001 is concerned, data regarding the Backward Class population has not been mentioned in the census report. However, as per the information received from the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Tarn Taran vide his letter dated 16.5.2008, total population of the village in the year 2001 was 880, out of which 180 persons belong to the Backward Class category. On the basis of the said report, one seat of Panch has been reserved for Backward Class category. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality in the impugned notification dated 22.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), whereby one seat has been reserved for Backward Class category. On the asking of the Court, short reply by way of affidavit has been filed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, on behalf of respondent No.1, in which it has been stated that as per the figures of the census proceedings in the year 2001, the total population of the Gram Sabha was 880, out of which population of Backward Class category was 180. By accepting the said figure, we are of the opinion that population of the Backward Class category in the village was more than 20%, therefore, as per Section 11 of the Act, one seat has been rightly reserved for the CWP No. 11648 of 2008 -4- Backward Class category. We do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that if in the year 2001, the population of the Backward Class category was 180, then why no seat was reserved for Backward class in the elections held in the year 2003, because the reservation of seats in the elections of 2003 was made on the basis of the census report of 1991. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 12, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE