wp2770-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2011 Abbas Hussain Allarakhu Shaikh .. Petitioner Versus Collector, Nashik & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde with Satyajeet Dighe for petitioner Mr.S.B.Shetye for respondent No.3 Mr.S.D.Rayrkar AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th July 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard both sides. Having perused the order dated 23rd December 2010 and the affidavit that has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is clear that the petitioner's grievance has no basis. The petitioner had objected that the Gram Sabha meeting was held on 4th December 2010. The Circle Inspector appraised the meeting about the existing wards and the proposed reservation. In the said meeting the existing wards and reservations were approved unanimously. A public notice was issued and objections were invited and, thereafter, the draft notification was published. The population as per the census is 6147 and this figure is not disputed. The village is to be divided in suitable number of wards having wp2770-11.doc 2 regard to the population and number of members. Therefore, five wards were proposed and 15 members of Gram Panchayat were to be elected. So far there is no difficulty and there is no objection. However, the draft notification was objected by three persons and they contended that reservation in Ward No.1 is required to be changed and one seat in the general category be reserved for scheduled tribe candidate. So far as Ward No. 5 is concerned, the proposed reservation is for woman member in Other Backward Class. The draft was partially modified and in the first ward two seats were reserved for scheduled tribes and consequential changes were made. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, there was no reason for changing reservation of ward No.1. There was no change in the population of scheduled tribes inasmuch as two seats are already reserved without there being change in the position of population in that category. Therefore, sub-rule 4 of the Rules has been violated. 2] After hearing Mr.Shinde and Mr.Shetye at some length and perusing Bombay Village Panchayat (Number of members Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966 I find that wording of the said rule itself indicates that the allotment of seats under the earlier sub-rules shall be made in such a way that at least one seat as far as practicable shall be kept unreserved in each ward. wp2770-11.doc 3 3] The explanation is that the proposals would indicate that the number of scheduled tribe population is 964 and, therefore, scheduled tribe should be allotted two seats from the ward No.1. That is how the correction has been made. The Collector has adverted to the factual position and has observed that the modification as suggested by him should be made. This aspect has been clarified in the affidavit. Therefore, reading of para 3 of the said affidavit together with Rule 4(4) leads to the only conclusion that the authorities have as far as possible allotted seats bearing in mind the population. Once the relevant criteria has been applied and the figures have been taken from the census, then, this exercise cannot be said to be contrary to law or vitiated by any perversity. Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is dismissed accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)