AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and State
Election Commission.
The petitioners have challenged the issuance of Form-
10 by the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate,
Samastipur by which the different Wards of the Rosera Nagar
Panchayat have been reserved.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
same is contrary to Section 12 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') read with Rule 29 of the Bihar
Municipal Election Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Rules''). Learned counsel submitted that the exercise with regard to
reservation of seats, especially for the Backward Classes has not been
properly carried out for the reason that there is non determination of
the population of the Backward Classes and the same has been
merged with other castes to come to that finding. Learned counsel
submitted that even after that Wards which were more deserving for
being reserved have not been reserved and Wards which did not
deserve to be reserved have been reserved and further that the
requirement of rotation has not been followed. Learned counsel
submitted that there is no formula as to how a particular Ward would
be reserved for Backward Classes.
Learned counsel for the State Election Commission
submitted that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
misconceived. It was submitted that the scheme is short and simple. It
begins with first reserving the Wards for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes which is to be done in descending order as per the
population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each Ward. After the same has been done, the remaining Wards, going by the
highest number of total population, the seats have to be reserved for
the Backward Classes. It was submitted that once the same is done,
there is lateral reservation from the category concerned i.e., Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and the unreserved
category, for women. Learned counsel submitted that the same is in
terms of Rule 29(2)(iv)(iii) of the Rules.
Having considered the rival contentions, the Court
finds no merit in the present writ application. The main contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners that for the reservation of
Backward Classes, there is no guideline or formula available is not
correct. Rule 29 itself provides as to how reservation would be done.
The same is based on the official 2011 census figures. It is pertinent
to note here that in the census, there was only figures relating to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and not of the Backward
Classes. Once there are no official figures for the Backward Classes, it
is obvious that Backward Classes form part of the population which is
minus the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes population, from
the total population. Once the Backward Classes are held to be
forming part of the population, excluding the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, the Rules provide that the Ward which has the
highest total population would be reserved for the Backward Classes. In the present case, a comparison of Forms 6 and 10 clearly reveals
that the said exercise has been done in terms of the 2011 census
figures and as per the formula and, thus, cannot be faulted.
In view thereof, the Court does not find any occasion
to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.