z' ^' '/ ..<'-- .^' l< ® IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETTION N0. 3 83 S OF 2004 PETITIONER ^1 v( l^viCL"' ANIL KUMAR NETAM S/0 SHRI <^¥; ^^y .••'/'^(."•';2^v\*" T" ^^p ^.••''.^•\5>-' ^/^€:>.>"' *';:%5:l;fSll €^y 'o-"" RESPONDENTS BALDURAM NETAM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/0 WARD N0. 8, NAGAR PANCHAYAT BHANUPRATAPPUR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.). VERSUS 1. -i ^i ^.'7^. ^^3-^i ^^" STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT, D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPUR, (C.G.). 2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH : THE SECRETARY, RAIPUR, (C.G.). 3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.) 4. NAGAR PANCHAYAT BHANUPRATAPPUR, DISTRICT KANKER, (C.G.), THROUGH : THE CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. -I- XI-HC-22 -s^ ^l<4M'rI, •d'-dl'y'lii, fq'ni'My sn1?T xra^ .\M.g,rJo:.1.5:% twwi g»n 200 fN^T' sn^i^i WM s^v ^qNi' yTia aniSF^siiw^fer t(>i'j<I<'i'ii1-f Twrcif ^ fs^t <Rit$i< ^3I^IJT3D^r colijisel prefejred 04.11.2004 Shri Rajesh Pandey, - Slyi N.K. Agrawal, Dep^ with' Shri Saajay Kuinar Agraw^ The petitioner has 226/2270f the Constitution[ propriety and correctaess (Annexure P-7) issued by fhe of Chairperson of certain N^a^- Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tr( The case of tlie petition^ caste azid resident of Nagar was uograded as Nazar Pand notification-dated 19.2.2003 (4 fhe petitioner is that Nagar Pau| 15 wards aad it is donunaatl tlierefore, looking to tribe poj should have been reserved forl reserved for O.B.C. Leamed counsel for the Rzile 8 of M.P. MunicipaUties| procedure for reservatioa for Nagar Panchayat, Bhaaupratap] Scbedilled Tribe. for the petitioner. |itv~ Advocate General for the State |il, counsel for isspondent No.4. this writ petition under Article of India questioniag the legality, |of notification dated 20.8.2004 itate Govenunent whereby the post Panchavats have been i^served for fbe and O.B.C categories. ^r is that he is Scheduled Tribe by panchayat Bhanupratappiur, which jhavat froia Gram Panchavat vide ^nnexure P-3). The fiirther case of 'hayat Bhanupratappuu' consists of |y inhabited by Scheduled Tribes, jaulation, the post of Chairperson Scheduled Tribe, but it has been ^etitioner argued that ia' view of the Act, 1961, which deals with flie newly constituted Muidcipalities, t>ur oiight to have been reserved for ['(^ ^ftS^ ;ii..,i ^ ::?v? XI-HC-22 an^i^r R-ti.'sb .OT^I StT^fW ^lRfl ^W^'^S'S'^^^S N'ilatts'i-2 g^Ea!!. T53 -><1*1]<-1<1, sal*1''S>-(°l<'")M1< 3TRf?T 'qiR? IIKCTI 9)*<1<») ^$..^!3S^L .1.. •M 200 fa'b<isr' 3n^t ?^aiw ^ifta leabied fhat On the ofher haad, State alongwifh Shri Sanjay iji respondent No.4 subnutted Nagar Pachayats com.es to therefore, only 10 Nagar Pan): whose percentage of tribe po| to be reserved for Scheduled perceatage offhe tribe popul^ been reserved for Scheduled Nagar Panchayat's percentagl; tribe population of Nagar }[ 8.68%, and its number is 4 descendiag order. F'urtlier ar|$ of M.P. Mmucipalities Act, 1\ case, as fhe reservation has t Graca Panchayat Bhanupr; Pancbavat ia the vear 200; been considered m tbe vear 21 I have heard the leamed As per Riile 5 ofM.P. W. Mayor aad President) Rules, ra;served for Scheduled Castes fhe same proportion, as neaj each of these cateRories, wil Corporations, aU the Muaicip^l •til^frl'Ml') HWvS 4 fS^t <RntSlt ^T SlPOT 311^1 Deputy Advocate General for the [luaar Agrawal, Advocate oa behalf of tot^ population of tribes ia aU 72 |14.17% and as 14% of 72 is 10, shayats out of 72 Nagar Paachayats, pulation is highest in niunbers, were ITribes. Counsel further submits that ttion of Nagar Paachavats which have ITribes stai-ts from 25.51% aad last ;|3 is 20.73%, whereas percentage of fanchayat, Bhaaiipratappur is only out of total 72 Nagar Pachayats ia ^gument of fhe couiisel is that Rule 8 p6l is not applicable in the present ;en inade in liie year 2004, whereas, |itappur was upgraded as Nagai- i|, therefore, reservation has already )04. counsel for fhe parties. (unicipalities (Reservation of Office of 1999 such nuinber of offices shaU be aad Scheduled Tribes as shaU bear i(ly as inay be, as the population of t|un (he Imuts of all the Municipal CoTincils, aad aU Nagar Pachayats [TJ^^^ T XI-HC-22 an^r^ feNaiiisi sft*llct) yi -1- -3^ "^PIRR, 'S^TT?, i^'ii'yy 3TT^?T 'IR^? IIICTI tnil* WI, 200 fg^ST' 3D^f^(IIW(to s +w[d''il-) WivK 4 'fS^t <FS]<«;K ^; •3lf:OT 3D^I as ine case inay be ia ttie Stat^ bears to fhe total population withia such Kmits. Such of&ces shal{ be reserved in descending order io. those Municipalities ia whiclji the percentage of popiilation of Scheduled Castes and Schedi|led Tnbes, as fhe case inay be, is higher in fheir total population^ In view of fhe above provjisions, post of Chairpersoa of fhose Nagar Pachayats shaU bc resert^ed for Scheduled Tribe whose tribe population is highest ia fheir tfjital population. In fhe present case as per reservatiori order posts ^sf Chairperson of Nagar Panchayats Berla, Lawan, Navagarh, PaB|dariya, Bhatgaon (Raipur), BiUia, Rataupur, Bagbahara, Nayabar^dwar, Adbhaar have been reseived for Scheduled Tribe, as their p|ercentage of tribe population starts from. 25.51% aad last Nagar |Pachayat's percentage is 20.75%, whei^as fhe percentage of tri^e population of Bbaaupratappur Nagar Panchayat is 8.68%. Th^refore, ia view offhe Rules of 1999 fhe petitioner's case has no la^rit, as the total tribe popiilation of all 72 Nagar Panchayats com.es to 10, therefore, only 10 posts to 14.17% and 14. 17% of72 comes rf Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat, popiilation of Bhaaupratappiu- couies at Sr. No.41 ia descendir whose tribe population is h^hjest ia their total population, have been reserved for Scbeduled Tr^be, whereas the percentage of tribe Nagar Paiichayat is 8.68% aad it order. In the result, I do not fi4d aay substance in the petition of the petitioner, same is liable to pse dismissed aad acconlin.gly, it is disinissed. I ------ L.C. Bhadoo Judge p»-?RR