(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6288 OF 2010 Sirajkhan s/o. Kalandarkhan Pathan, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shivaji Chowk, Mantha, Taluka : Mantha, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The State Election Commission, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 3. District Collector, Jalna, District : Jalna (An Officer authorized to hold Elections of Grampanchayat). .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 3RD DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Not on board. Taken on board, at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th June 2010, passed by the respondent no.3, thereby rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner, regarding allotment of reserved seats, in respect of elections of Ward No.5 of Grampanchayat Mantha (Taluka : Mantha, District : Jalna). 3. It is the contention of the petitioner, that in so far as Ward No.5 is concerned, one seat is reserved for candidate belonging to Other Backward Class, one seat is for open category and one seat is reserved for woman from open category, thereby having total three seats. It is submitted that as per rotation, two seats ought to have been for open category and one seat ought to (3) have been reserved for a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class. 4. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 / Election Commission, relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo and another Vs. Collector, Satara and another (2010(6) Mh.L.J. 109), submits that the petition itself is not tenable. 5. In so far as provision of reservation and rotation is concerned, the rules themselves provide for some flexibility, inasmuch as, the words used are "as far as practicable". Even otherwise, taking into consideration the complexities of reservation, wherein vertical reservation is required to be provided for various reserved categories and horizontal reservation is provided for woman category, at times, it may not be possible to follow hard and fast rule. Unless it is pointed out, that this has been done with some ulterior motive so as to favour someone or disfavour someone, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the allotment of reservation of seats in an election. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court (4) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6288