IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12501 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 16.12.2008 Sewa Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are residents of Village Fatehgarh alias Rategarh, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, and belong to the Scheduled Caste community, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P-1), issued by the State Government, reserving the seats of Panches under Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record and its copy has been handed over to counsel for the petitioners. CWP No. 12501 of 2008 -2- It is the case of the petitioners that as per the census report of 2001, the Scheduled Caste population in Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh was 155 and in spite of that, no seat of Panch was reserved for that category. It is further case of the petitioners that in the last elections of the Gram Panchayat i.e. in the year 2003, one seat of Panch was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, but this time, no seat of Panch has been reserved for this category. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it has been stated that in the year 2008, Gram Panchayat, Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh was bifurcated in 2 Gram Panchayats, namely Gram Panchayat, Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh and Gram Panchayat, Village Chak Amritsaria. After the bifurcation, the population of Village Fatehgarh @ Rategarh remains only 1372. Out of this total population of 1372, the Scheduled Caste population was only 93 whereas the Backward Class population was 767. Keeping in view the said population figure, which was in accordance with the census report of 2001, no seat of Panch has been reserved for Scheduled Caste category, because as per the percentage of the population of the Scheduled Caste, even one seat cannot be allocated to that category. After hearing counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. According to the population figure given in the written statement, the total population of the Scheduled Caste in the village comes to only 6.7%. Since out of 7 seats of Panches, one seat could have CWP No. 12501 of 2008 -3- been reserved, if total population of the Scheduled Caste in the village was more than 10%, therefore, in our opinion, the respondents, while making reservation under Section 11 of the Act, vide notification dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P-1), have rightly not reserved any seat of Panch for the Scheduled Caste category. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in the last elections, which were held in the year 2003, and also prior to that, one seat of Panch was always reserved for Scheduled Caste category, cannot be accepted, because the earlier reservation was made on the basis of population figure given in the census report of the year 1991. Therefore, the said reservation has no relevance with the present reservation, which is to be made, according to Section 11 of the Act, in proportionate to the population of the Scheduled Caste in the village, as per the census report of 2001. Even otherwise, we have been informed that the elections of the Panches of the Gram Panchayat has been held and notified. Thereafter, the Sarpanch has been elected and his name has also been notified. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 16, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE