S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28375/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/09/2015 in MISB No. 8805/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
JYOTI SRIVASTAVA & ANOTHEर Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to place addl. documents on record)
Date : 05/10/2015
This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Adv. Gen Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI)
(INDU BALA KAPUR)
(INDU BALA KAPUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Deepak Mansukhani
Date: 2015.10.05 22:56:03
IST Reason:
This is the order of Hon. High Court Lucknow Bench--
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 8805 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Srivastava & 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Panchayati Raj & 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S. Jain,Ranjana Agnihotri
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aprajita Bansal
Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
By way of this writ petition the petitioners have essentially put to question the provisos, as occurring in Sections 6A, 7A, 18A & 19A of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats, Adhiniyam, 1961 which empower determination of 'Population of Backward Classes' by carrying out a survey on the ground, inter alia, that the process as made permissible under the said provisos is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and is contrary to the basic scheme of Part-IX of the Constitution of India, particularly Article 243 D therein.
The petitioners have also put to question Rule 4 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Reservation and Allotment of Seats and Offices), Rules 1994 wherein it is provided that: 'if in any election, the population of the Scheduled Tribes or of the Scheduled Castes or of the Backward Classes, cannot be ascertained territorial constituency wise the descending order may be determined on the basis of number of families, in the territorial constituencies of the Scheduled Tribes or of the Scheduled Castes or of the Backward Classes, as the case may be'. The petitioners have also challenged Rule 10 of U.P. Panchayats (Determination and Publication of Number of Persons Belonging to the Backward Classes) Rules, 1994 as being unconstitutional and beyond the law making power of the State Government.
It is submitted that the questioned provisions are squarely contrary to the scheme of Part-IX of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 243-D thereof. It is also contended in this writ petition that the State Government has no power or jurisdiction to allot the seats to the Zila Panchayats or Kshettra Panchayats and every such exercise is to be carried out by the Election Commission per Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. With these submissions, the petitioners have questioned the Government Order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure - 1) issued by the State Government for completion of the process of allotment of seats to reserve categories. The petitioners have also questioned the final allotment list of reserve seats of Zila Panchayat, Lucknow as contained in Annexure - 5 to the petition.The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief.
The learned Chief Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission pray for time for completing their instructions. Looking to the subject matter, it does appear appropriate to call upon the respondents to immediately file short counter affidavits in response to the basic contentions urged in this writ petition.
The prayer for interim relief has been opposed with reference to the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases (i) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, (ii) Anugrah Narain Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P reported in (1996) 6 SCC 303, and (iii) Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the process, if commenced from 28th inst. is likely to cause more inconvenience and when the entire process appears to be contrary to the constitutional mandate, no prejudice would be caused to anyone if the elections of Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats are not held at present. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that Article 243-O shall have no application in this matter.
In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are, at present, leaving all the aspects open for the examination and orders on the next date after the respondents file their short counter affidavits but in the interest of justice, it is provided that any steps undertaken pursuant to the impugned notifications shall remain subject to further orders to be passed in this writ petition on the next date.
List this matter on 28.09.2015.
Order Date :- 23.9.2015
Pradeep/-
(Rakesh Srivastava, J.)
(Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
