1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7326 OF 2009 With Civil Application No.12372 Of 2009 Sunil S/o Ganpatrao Suryawnashi And Others. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.N. Dhorde holding for Shri. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri. S.T. Shelke Advocate for respondent No.2. -------- With Writ Petition No.7347 of 2009 Housrao Manjabapu Bhose. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- 2 Shri.S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri. S.T. Shelke Advocate for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 26th NOVEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the year 2006 the seat of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrigonda was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Women category. As the candidate from Scheduled Tribe Women category was not available the seat ought to have been allotted to Scheduled Tribe Male candidate. As the person belonging to Scheduled Tribe Male was also not available the seat was allotted to the candidate belonging to OBC Woman category. The tenure was for two and half years. Accordingly the candidate from OBC Women was holding the 3 office of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti. This time, on 25-8-2009 fresh draw for rotation of reservation was drawn and the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was again reserved for OBC Women category. 3) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri. R.N. Dhorde and Shri. S.S. Deshmukh drew our attention to the rules namely “Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (President, Vice- President and Chairmen of Subjects Committees) & Panchayat Samitis (Chairman & Deputy Chairman) (Reservation of Offices and Election) Rules 1962 (for short “the Rules”) and more particularly rule 2F (2)(b) and (6). In the light of the said rules it was submitted that reservation for the office of the chairman for OBC woman would amount to double reservation for the same category which is not permissible in law neither is relevant in view of the reservation and rotation policy. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 3-10-2006 4 in Writ Petition No.5386 of 2006 (Uday Khanderao Pawar v. The State Election Commission) and Prashant Bansilal Bamb v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (2) ALL MR 326. It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since last more than 10 years OBC Male candidate was contesting the election to the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, but failed to get elected. 4) The State filed affidavits-in-reply. In the additional affidavit-in-reply the State has placed reliance on the proviso to rule 2F(6) of the Rules. In the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, in view of the fact that in the year 2006 candidate from Scheduled Tribe Women was not available neither candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Male was available, therefore, the seat was rightly alloted to the persons belonging to OBC Women category. According to the learned AGP Shri. Tambe the proviso is very clear as even if the 5 office reserved for Scheduled Tribe Women could not be chaired by the said category, it shall be treated that the office is held by the person belonging to Scheduled Tribe Women. The AGP further submitted that the election process is already set in motion and the voting is to take place day after tomorrow. On the day of drawing of lots one of the petitioners namely Ganpatrao Sahebrao Kakade was present. None of the persons present there including the petitioner raised any objection to the draw of lots of reservation in spite of calling of objections by the Collector Ahmednagar, according to the proceedings which are placed on record by the deponent in the additional affidavit-in-reply. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that this time while drawing lots the office of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was alloted to OBC Women category. Therefore, it has to be allotted to the person who belongs to OBC women category. 6 5) We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the rules and the judgments cited above. Prima facie we are not convinced with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the facts of the case more particularly in view of rule 2F (6) proviso which read that where the office of the Chairman is reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and no elected woman member belonging to such Tribes is available, then the office of Chairman for the same tenure shall be treated as if originally reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. 6) This time, while drawing lots the office of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is alloted to the persons belonging to OBC women category. This reservation is made in accordance with drawing of lots under the rules. Prima facie we find that in the earlier reservation the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was held 7 in absence of availability of candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Women or Scheduled Tribe Male category. 7) Even otherwise, the election process is set in motion and the voting is to take place day after tomorrow. The petitioners did not raise any objection at an appropriate time. Prima facie, we are not convinced with the pleas raised by the petitioners. 8) The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 9) Civil Application No.12372 Of 2009 does not survive, it is dismissed accordingly. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.7326.09