1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2647 OF 2010 Shri Keshavrao Narayan Adsure .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary to Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.T.Shelke, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 26th March 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for declaring that the reservation of the office of the Sarpanch of village Vilad for S.T.woman category is contrary to Rule 2-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 and thereafter to direct the respondents to prepare the roster of reservation of entire Nagar Taluka as per the Rule 2-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The petitioner prays for grant of interim relief during the pendency of this petition. 2. This petition has been filed on 23.3.2010 and was mentioned before the Court for circulation and the matter was accordingly circulated 2 on 24.3.2010. This Court had issued notice to the respondents and had directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to obtain necessary instructions and accordingly this petition came to be listed before the Court today. 3. The basic challenge in the petition is that the reservation of the post of Sarpanch for Scheduled Tribe woman category candidate is contrary to the rules, particularly Rule 2-A dealing with the reservations of seats for the election of Sarpanch. Shri S.T.Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the text of the Rule and has pointed out several lacunae in the reservation provided by the respondents for the post of Sarpanch of village Vilad Grampanchayat. 4. Mrs.Gondhalekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted before us that initially the Grampanchayat of Vilad and Grampanchayat of Pimpri Ghumat constituted a group Grampanchayat which came to be split by the Notification dated 30.8.2009. By virtue of the said Notification, issued by the Government, Grampanchayat of village Vilad and Grampanchayat of village Pimpri Ghumat came to be constituted. The Grampanchayat of Vilad came into existence by virtue of the said Notification and as per Rule 2-A a Notification came to be issued by the Government on 25.11.2009 dealing with the reservation which was required to be provided for a Grampanchayat afresh. It is the contention of 3 Mrs.Gondhalekar, learned Assistant Govt.Pleader that the policy of rotation would commence from the next election as the Grampanchayat of village Vilad has come into existence recently. The earlier reservation which was provided for the group Grampanchayat consisting of village Vilad and village Pimpri Ghumat cannot be made applicable and it cannot be urged that rotation should commence from this election. 5. In any event, the post of Sarpanch of village Vilad came to be declared by the Government by an order which was issued on 30.12.2009 making it available for woman belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. The Collector accordingly convened a meeting on 3.3.2009 which was attended by the petitioner as is evident from the document at Exh.”E”. The reservation for the post of Sarpanch came to be declared by the Collector. The petitioner was aware of this reservation, yet chose to file a petition on 23.3.2010. We are informed that a meeting to elect the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of village Vilad is scheduled today and as per the election programme the time for acceptance of the nomination has already commenced which is from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon while the scrutiny is from 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m. with a liberty to the candidates to withdraw their nomination from 12.30 to 1.45 p.m. and the polling would commence at 2.00 p.m. 6. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that as per the list of the elected representatives, there is no woman 4 candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and consequently, the declaration of the reservation for woman – Scheduled Tribe category would be an exercise in futility. The rules have been framed especially Rule 2-A which takes care of such eventuality. 7. In the face of the facts that the election is scheduled today and the time for acceptance of nomination has already commenced, we declined to interfere in this petition. The petitioner was aware about reservation yet chose to file a petition at the last moment when the elections were just round the corner. The challenge made by the petitioner cannot be investigated by us in the light of the fact that the elections are scheduled today. We relegate the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available to the petitioner in law in respect of the challenge to the elections. Since there is no merit in the petition, petition is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/2647.2010wp)