IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10655 of 2008 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 07.11.2008 Sukhwinder Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. G.S. Brar, advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat, village Phullewala, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, against the seat reserved for Women (General), has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 27.2.2008, 11.4.2008 and 13.5.2008, Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, respectively, issued by the State Government, and also the corrigendum dated 13.5.2008, Annexure P-5, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga. Since the petitioner contested the elections of Panch, which were held throughout the State under the notifications dated 27.2.2008, CWP No. 10655 of 2008 -2- 11..4.2008 and 13.5.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer of the petitioner to challenge the corrigendum dated 13.5.2008, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga, whereby the earlier notification dated 10.5.2008, Annexure P-4, was modified. Vide the notification dated 10.5.2008, reservation of the office of Sarpanches in respect of Block Baghapurana was made for various categories, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In the said notification, the office of Sarpanch of Village Phulewala (village of the petitioner) was reserved for `women (General)' and the office of Sarpanch of village Manuke was reserved for the `Scheduled Caste category'. By the impugned corrigendum issued on 13.5.2008, the reservation for the office of Sarpanch of Village Phulewal was changed from women to Scheduled Caste category and that of Village Manuke was changed from Scheduled Caste to women category. In the written statement, filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga, it has been stated that vide the impugned notification dated 13.5.2008, the aforesaid changes in the reservation were made, on receipt of certain information from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Baghapura, whereby mistake committed in the notification dated 10.5.2008 was pointed out. It has been stated that change in the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of Villages Phulewala and Manuke was necessitated, because the office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Moga had committed a clerical mistake at the time of entering data in the CWP No. 10655 of 2008 -3- computer and the said mistake was detected after two days of the notification dated 10.5.2008. It has been stated that the office of Sarpanch of village Phulewala should have been reserved for Scheduled Caste category, keeping in view the Scheduled Caste population in the village, which was 62% of the total population of the village. Therefore, the reservation for the office of Sarpanch of villages Phulewala and Manuke was inter-changed. The aforesaid factual position, as stated in the reply filed by respondent No.3 has not been controverted by the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the change in the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of village Phulewala from Women to Scheduled Caste, because she being a non-S.C., elected as Panch from the seat reserved for Women (General) is not eligible to contest the office of Sarpanch, which has now been reserved for Scheduled Caste. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned corrigendum was issued after the election of the Panches, which were held on 26.5.2008, therefore, the same was illegal as it was issued with a malafide object to prevent the petitioner from contesting the election of the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. However, in the written statement, this fact has been categorically denied and it has been stated that the corrigendum was issued on 13.5.2008 i.e. 3 days after the earlier notification dated 10.5.2008, much before the election of the Panches held on 26.5.2008. Even otherwise, the issuance of notification under Section 12 of the Act before or after the election of the Panches has no CWP No. 10655 of 2008 -4- relevance, because the impugned corrigendum has been issued for reserving the office of Sarpanch, election of which was conducted in the month of July, 2008. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned corrigendum issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga, while inter- changing the reservation for the office of Sarpanch of village Phulewala and Manuke. We have been informed that election of the Sarpanch has already taken place according to the said reservation. In view of these facts, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned corrigendum, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 07, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE