WP 4855/11 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4855/2011 Rajkumar s/o Marotrao Patait, age 46 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Ward No.16, Vasmat Tq.Vasmat Dist.Hingoli. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The State Election Commission, Mumbai. 3] The Collector, Hingoli. Dist.Hingoli. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.S. Pail, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 3. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 23.08.2011 WP 4855/11 - 2 - PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petition challenges the Ordinance No.XIII of 2011 promulgated by the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department dated 26.5.2011. Vide the said Ordinance, various amendments have been incorporated to the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; The City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The effect of amendment is that the constituencies, which were earlier a single member constituencies, have been now made multiple member constituencies. 3] Shri S.M. Vibhute, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the said amendment is violative of Article 243-R of the Constitution of India, so also Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Clause (1) of Article 243-R of the Constitution reads thus: “Save as provided in clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area and for this purpose each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be WP 4855/11 - 3 - known as wards.” Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act reads thus: “No person shall be entitled to vote at any election in the same ward more than once, notwithstanding that his name may appear in the list of voters for that ward more than once if he does so vote all his votes in that ward shall be void.” Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, which is now incorporated by way of amendment reads thus: “Each of the wards shall elect as far as possible four Councilors but not less than three and not more than five Councilors, and each voter shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 14, be entitled to cast the same number of votes, as the number of Councilors to be elected in his ward.” 4] Perusal of Clause (1) of Article 243-R of the Constitution would reveal that what has been provided under the said Article is that all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election. These elections are required to be from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area. It further provides WP 4855/11 - 4 - that for this purpose, each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. It can be seen that what is provided under the Constitution is that a Municipal area has to be divided into territorial constituencies and all the seats in the Municipality are required to be filled by persons chosen by direct election. There is nothing in the Constitution, which prohibits a multiple member constituency. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the petitioner in that regard. 5] Insofar as the contention regarding Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is concerned, Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment itself provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 14, a person would be entitled to cast the same number of votes, as the number of Councilors to be elected in his ward. The intent of the Legislature is, thus, clear that it intends to supersede the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 by specifically incorporating the provision in that regard of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. 6] By now, it is a settled principle of law that the statement of object and reasons of the particular enactment can be taken into consideration for interpreting the said enactment. The perusal of SOR would reveal that the Legislature has decided to incorporate 50% reservation for women and for the said purpose, it is felt necessary that the constituencies should be multi member WP 4855/11 - 5 - constituencies. We, therefore, find that the amendment is in furtherance of the legislative intent of providing 50% reservation to the women. 7] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition is rejected. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) ndk/c2381127