1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2567 OF 2011 (Shri Megorao Nagu Madavi vs. The State of Maharaashtra & Ors.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 07, 2011. Heard Shri Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The grievance is of violation of Rule 4(B) and Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Number of Members, Division into Wards and Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966. Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel contends that it was obligatory as per provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Rules, to first publish a proposed notification showing the reservation and after considering the objections, if any, a final notification in this respect could have been published. He further states that to find out Wards in which a reservation is to be implemented, drawal of lots by Tahsildar is mandatory. According to him, both these provisions 2 are not followed and in reply this assertion has not been denied. He further states that though the notification dated 26.05.2011 showing division into Wards and reservation is modified as per orders dated 03.06.2011 of this Court, still as this basic mandatory formalities are not fulfilled, the reservation and division cannot be upheld. He contends that the petitioner is interested in contesting from Ward No. 2 and as in Ward No. 2, there is no reservation for S.T. (Open) category, the petitioner cannot contest from said ward. Smt. Dangre, learned Additional GP, on the other hand, states that Election programme has already commenced and now the stage of nomination has already reached. In Ward No. 2 there is reservation for ST (Woman). The attention is invited to provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, to urge that the petitioner can contest from any other Ward and it is not obligatory for him to contest only from Ward No. 2. The fact that Election programme has already commenced is not in dispute. Though the drawal of lots by Tahsildar or then the publication of proposed notification is not pointed out by the respondents, in present situation, we are not inclined to interfere as the reservation for any particular category is not permanently attached to that Ward 3 and it shifts to another Ward in next election. The highest population of particular community in a Ward, therefore, is not always decisive. However, we are not concluding the issue in present matter as we find that the petitioner can still contest election from any Ward of Gram Panchayat. With that liberty to the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.