Kehar Singh Rana v. State of Haryana and Others

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

¶1  Petitioner (Kehar Singh Rana) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ  in  the  nature  of  certiorari  for  quashing  the  order  dated  21.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the seat of Sarpanch of Gram  Panchayat,  Kakeheri  (respondent  No.5)  has  been  reserved  for  the Sarpanch belonging to Scheduled Castes; whereas the same is to be treated in the General Category, as the said reservation is against the mandatory provisions of Rules 5 and 6 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated

06.10.2022  (Annexure  P-7)  passed  by  respondent  No.2;  whereby  the representation moved by the petitioner to the said effect, has been rejected.

2.    Briefly, the petitioner claims that he is a resident of Village GURPREET KAUR Kakeheri, Block Siwan, District Kaithal and belongs to the general category. The petitioner wanted to contest the elections of the Office of Sarpanch of Gram  Panchayat  Kakeheri,  which  were  going  to  be  held  by  the  State Government  under the provisions of the Haryana Panchyati Raj Act, 1994 (in short `the 1994 Act').

3.    It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner  that  in  accordance  with  the mandate of the provisions contained under Section 9 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 6 of the Election Rules, 1994; respondent No.2 (The Director General,  Rural  Development  and  Panchayats  Department,  Panchayat Bhawan) passed an order dated 21.09.2022 making various reservations of the seats for the Scheduled Castes Sarpanch in District Kaithal. Petitioner states that as per order dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-1), there are 44 Gram Panchayats in Block Siwan and according to the ratio of population of the Scheduled  Castes  in  Block  Siwan  and  the  total  population  of  the  Gram Panchayats in the said Block, the percentage of Scheduled Caste population in  the  Block  comes  to  30.35%.  Therefore,  on  the  basis  of  the  said percentage, 13 seats of Sarpanch have to be reserved for Scheduled Caste in the Block.

4.    The sum and substance of the grievance raised by the petitioner, is contained in para Nos.9 to 12 of the writ petition, which reads as under :- "9.  That  as  per  Clause  1(6)  of  the  impugned order, total 11 villages have been shown to be excluded as having population of 10% or less of Scheduled Castes in the Village concerned as per the Census-2011. However, it is submitted that in the said list of 11 villages, one village Kakrala Anayat has been excluded on the ground that it has  S.C.  Population  of  10%  and  less  as  per  the requirement  of  the  statute  on  the  basis  of  Census-2011. However,  it  is  submitted  that  the  said  Village  Kakrala GURPREET KAUR Anayat has been wrongly excluded by respondent No.2 as the  percentage  of  population  of  the  said  Village  as  per Census 2011 is more than 10% and not less as alleged i.e.

10.24%. This fact is apparent from the copy of the Census-2011 of the Village Kakrala Anayat which is mentioned at Sr.  No.85  and  the  S.C.  Population  percentage  comes  to

10.24%. In this regard, a copy of the Census-2011 List and the  details  uploaded  by  the  Department  itself  on  the Internet  giving  the  percentage  of  S.C.  Population  of Village  Kakrala  Anayat  as  per  Census-2011  are  being filed.

10.  That  thus,  it  is  apparent  that  Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat was not liable to be excluded from the zone of consideration for reservation of office of S.C.  Sarpanch.  Moreover,  the  said  Village  Kakrala Anayat, respondent No.3 has never been reserved for the purpose of office of S.C. Sarpanch earlier and thus, having never been reserved, it was liable to be included in the List of Reservations at Sr. No.5 of the List of Gram Panchayats i.e. Numbering 13 whose offices of Sarpanch have been reserved for S.C. Sarpanch, as it would be indicated as "0" at Sr. No.5. This is apparent from (Annexure P-5) i.e. List  of  Reservation.  Consequently,  the  Gram  Panchayat Kakeheri  to  which  the  petitioner  belongs  and  which  is being indicated at Sr. No.13 would be omitted from the List of Gram Panchayats reserved for S.C. Sarpanch as only 13 Gram  Panchayats  have  to  be  reserved  as  per  the proportion of S.C. Population.

11.  That thus, from the above, it is apparent that the  Gram  Panchayat  Kakeheri  to  which  the  petitioner belongs has to be put in the General Category and not in the  reserved  category  for  S.C.  Sarpanch  and  thus,  the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

12.  That  secondly,  the  impugned  order (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set-aside, as in para 2 of the impugned order, it has been shown that Gram Panchayat *achi  (ishol  has  been  earlier  reserved  twice  for  #.C. #arpanch  and  even  5ram  (ancha-at  (ishol  has  been reserved twice for #.C. #arpanch.: ..    !n /iew of the afore(said stand of the petitioner" he earlier filed CWP No.23185 of 2022" which ca-e to )e disposed of /ide order dated %4.1%.2%22"  passed  )*  the  oordinate  5ench  of  this  ourt  )*  directing respondent  +o.2  herein  to  decide  the  representation  su)-itted  )*  the petitioner.  Apparentl*"  the  afore(said  representation  su)-itted  )*  the petitioner ca-e to )e re2ected )* respondent +o.2 herein /ide order dated %6.1%.2%22 (Anne'ure P(7).

6.  In the present writ petition, a perusal of the order sheet would show that no formal notice of motion was issued; however, learned State counsel had sought time to file status report, which was filed on 10.11.2022 and the matter was listed for final arguments. The relevant extract of status report reads as under :- "3. That reservation of seats of Scheduled Caste Sarpanch in block Siwan, District Kaithal was done in accordance with the provision of Section 9 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 6 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules 1994 and as per the order of Director General vide letter no.DPH/ECA-2/117/2022 on dated 21/09/2022 which is annexed in the writ petition as Annexure (P-1). Reservation of offices of Sarpanches for Scheduled Castes have been made amongst the gram panchayats first having the largest maximum population of Scheduled Castes according to census 2011 and having been reserved earlier least number of time for Scheduled Castes after excluding the Gram Panchayats having 10% or less than 10% of Scheduled Castes population. The amended section 9(6) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is reproduced as under.

¶4That as per record in the block Siwan 13 panchayats have to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and 4

panchayats since the year 1994, till date, have not been reserved for the Scheduled Castes and their population is more than 10%. In addition to this, there are 9 such panchayats which have been reserved for the scheduled castes from 1994, till today, for only one time and in the same, the population percentage of the scheduled castes is the maximum. Gram Panchayat Kakheri has also been reserved only for 1 time and the population of the scheduled castes in it is 23.76%. Gram Panchayat Kakheri is included in the said 9 Panchayats in which the population percentage of the scheduled castes is between 23.76% to 38.84% and they have been reserved only for one time. That as per record and order of Director General, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, there are total 44 Gram Panchayats in block Siwan, District Kaithal and the details of gram panchayats excluding 11, the gram panchayats having 10% or less than 10% population is given as under :- Sr. No. No. of times, the GP remained reserved for SC Sarpanch Name of GP Total Populati on Scheduled Caste Population Percentage of Scheduled caste Population in the GP Andahli 1113

17.25 Atela 1625

30.77 Dharampura 1253 1201

95.85 Dohar 2590

19.07 Farsgnazra 1493

28.33 Gogh

15.09 Gohra 1210

38.84 Harnola

19.26 Janedpur

40.24 Kachi Pisol

43.64 Kakheri 4197

23.76 Kakrala Kuchiyan

18.37 Kakyor Mazra 1041

10.37

Kanthali 2910 1544

53.06 Kasour 1552

20.36 Kawartaran 2899

28.73 Kheri Gulamali 4515

18.54 Kharaka 7057 3984

56.45 Ladana Chaku 3661 1073

29.31 Landekima 1512

10.52 Malikpur 2245

27.44 Nagal 1565

57.51 Pahadpur 1222 1050

85.92 Papsar 1039

17.61 Parbhawat

25.67 Pishol

28.88 Ramthali 2207

15.72 Rasulpur 2949 1034

35.06 Sair 2435

19.84 Sotha 2133

13.17 Tarawali 1868 1280

68.52 Theh Kharak

10.91 Urlana 2198 1298

59.05

¶5That as per record and order of Director General, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, the details of 13 Gram Panchayats are required to be reserved for Scheduled castes Sarpanch in accordance under Rule 6 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. The following Gram Panchayat having been reserved least number of times so far and having maximum percentage of Scheduled Castes population and here by reserved for Scheduled castes Sarpanch. The list of 13 Gram Panchayat who are having the highest

population of scheduled castes have been reserved for scheduled castes Sarpanches. Sr. No. Number of times, The GP remained reserved for SC Sarpanch

Name of Gram Panchayat Total Population Scheduled Caste Population Percentage of Scheduled Caste population in the Gram panchayat Gogh

15.09 Theh Kharak

10.91 Lenderkima 1512

10.52 Kakyormajra 1041

10.37 Gohra 1210

38.84 Rasulpur 2949 1034

35.06 Atela 1625

30.77 Ladana Chakku 3661 1073

29.31 Kawaratan 2899

28.73 Fareshmajra 1493

28.33 Malikpur 2245

27.44 Parbhawat

25.67 Kakeheri 4197

23.76

¶6That against the order of reservation of Director General Development & Panchayat Department Haryana dated

21.09.2022 the petitioner earlier filed CWP No.23185 of 2022 before the Honble High Court titled as Kehar Singh Rana V/s State of Haryana & others which was disposed off vide order dated 04.10.2022 with a direction to Respondent no.2-Director General Development & Panchayat Department, Haryana to

consider and decide the representation dated 29-09-2022 (Annexure P-6) (marked to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal) expeditiously in accordance with law by passing speaking order on 06.10.2022.

¶7That in compliance of the direction of Hon'ble High Court, respondent No.2-Director General Development & Panchayat Department, Haryana decided the representation of the petitioner on merits and order dated 21.09.2022 has been rightly passed vide order dated 06.10.2022 which is annexed in the writ petition as annexure (P-7).

¶8That as the question regarding gram panchayat Kachi Pisol not having been reserved earlier is concerned as per the record of Gram Panchayat Block Siwan, the Gram Panchayat Kachi Pissol, which was earlier a part of Gram Panchayat Pissol and Gram Panchayat Pissol was reserved two times in the year 1995 & 2010. In this manner Kachi Pisol has also been considered to be reserved two times for the Scheduled Castes.

¶9That as per the order of Director General Development & Panchayat Department Haryana and as per record in Gram Panchayat Kakarla Anayat the population of Scheduled Castes is 10.24% and the claim that it has not been reserved even once is not appropriate as per census 2011. Earlier Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat comprised of two village i.e. village Kakrala Anayat and Kakrala Kuchiyan the total population of Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat is 2090 and the population of Scheduled Castes is 214 in this the Abadi of two Gram Panchayats i.e. Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayaat and Gram Panchayat Kakrala Kuchian is included. After bifurcation in the Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat in the year 2004 vide order dated 29-09-2004 and two Gram Panchayats namely Kakrala Anayat and Kakrala Kuchiya were formed. As per record, the total population of Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat is 1110 and Scheduled Castes population is 34 the percentage of Scheduled Castes is only 3.06 and in this manner

the population of Scheduled Castes is less than 10% and due to that reason the same cannot be reserved. The remaining population is of Gram Panchayat Kakrala Kuchian, the percentage of Scheduled Castes is 18.37 and the population of Scheduled Caste is 180. Thereby this panchayat has been reserved once but the population of Scheduled Castes of Gram Panchayat Kakeheri is 23.76 percent and in this manner therefore Gram Panchayat Kakeheri is reserved for the Scheduled Castes.

¶10That as per the report of District Revenue Officer, Kaithal vide letter no.8308 dated 13.10.2022 the hadbust number

(69) of Kakrala Anayat & Kakrala Kuchian is the same according to the census of 2011 both the villages have been treated as one census unit and census is conducted on the basis of hadbust number (69), which is annexed with annexure (R-1). The Gram Panchayat of Kakrala Anayat is bifurcated by the order of Development & Panchayat Department Haryana Government on dated 29.09.2004. As per the wardbandi of Gram Panchayat Siwan on dated 17-04-2015, the total population of Kakrala Anayat is 1110 and population of scheduled caste is 34 and the total population of Kakrala Kuchiya is 980 and population of Scheduled Caste is 180. Thus the order passed by the authority concerned are legal and correct and based upon the provisions of law. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of submission in the present status report, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶11That as per notification no.SEC/4E-II/2022/3064 dated 07-10-2022 of State Election Commission Haryana polling of Election held on 02.11.2022 under rule 24(2)(vi) in Gram Panchayats, in block Siwan, District Kaithal and the Sarpanch has been elected for the Gram Panchayat concerned."

A perusal of the above extracted status report would show that as per notification no. SEC/4E-II/2022/3064 dated 07.10.2022 of the State

Election Commission, Haryana polling of election held on 02.11.2022 under rule 24(2)(vi) in Gram Panchayats, in block Siwan, District Kaithal and the Sarpanch has been elected for the Gram Panchayat concerned.

7.

Apparently, the scheme regarding reservation of the office of sarpanch for the Scheduled Castes in the Gram Panchayats within a block and the rotation thereof to different Gram Panchayats; is a complex process, which is discernible not only from the contents of the writ petition, but would also be apparent from the status report. The question arises if upon consideration of the respective claims of the parties, any adjustment is required to be made as regards reservation of the office of sarpanch for the Scheduled Castes in a particular Gram Panchayat within a block and/or as regards the rotation thereof to different Gram Panchayats. However, keeping in view the fact that the polling of election has already been held on

02.11.2022 in Gram Panchayats in block Siwan, District Kaithal and the Sarpanch has been elected for the Gram Panchayat concerned, any such adjustment would create an imbalance in the seats to be reserved as regards the office of sarpanch for the Scheduled Castes in the Gram Panchayats within a block.

8.

Evidently, no interim relief/stay was granted in the instant petition as regards holding of elections of the block concerned.

9.

The fact remains that there is no challenge to the validity of the provisions contained in the 1994 Act and also the Election Rules, framed thereunder. Further, the scheduled elections have already been held on

02.11.2022 as regards the Gram Panchayats in Block Siwan, District Kaithal and the Sarpanches have been elected for the Gram Panchayats concerned. There is no challenge to the elections of the other Gram Panchayats within

the Block Siwan nor there is any interim direction/order, indicating that the elections to the other Gram Panchayats within the Block Siwan, would be subject to the final outcome of the present petition. Resultantly, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner and at the cost of repetition, it is added that any attempt to change the reservation of the Office of the Sarpanch for the Scheduled Castes in the Gram Panchayat within a block and/or any rotation thereof to different Gram Panchayats within the block, shall upset the entire election process, which already stands concluded.

10.

A somewhat similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arun S/o Shankar Dokhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2017(13) SCC 500, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "4. We have heard the counsel for both sides at length. During the hearing, it was noticed that the scheme regarding rotation of seats reserved for women or backward class of citizens etc., is a very complex process. That is discernible from the relevant provisions regarding allotment and rotation of seats reserved for women. We are of the considered opinion that even if the Petitioners succeed in persuading us on merits, as the election process of phase one has concluded with declaration of results in respect of other Electoral Divisions, the same cannot be undermined. Any attempt to make adjustment even in respect of one constituency i.e. Electoral Division No.20 (Chande-Kasare), would create an imbalance in the ratio of seats to be reserved for the respective categories as mandated by the provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1996 Rules. Indeed, the Petitioners have invited our attention to the dichotomy in the provisions of the Act, in particular Section 12(2) (d), which postulates allotment of seats by rotation to different Electoral Divisions in a Zilla Parishad whereas the 1996

Rules provides for allocation of seats by drawing of lots. There appears to be some confusion if not conflict in the case of reconciling the mandate of reservation of seats for women in terms of Section 12(2) (d) and reservation of seats for women in reserved categories in terms of the Rules. The fact remains that the validity of provisions contained in the 1996 Rules has not been challenged in the writ petition. Further, the election schedule notified on 11.01.2017 by the State Election Commission has proceeded to its logical end in respect of all other Electoral Divisions of the concerned Zilla Parishad/Panchayat Samitis. There is no challenge to those elections nor those elections have been made subject to the outcome of the present Special Leave Petition. As a result, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners.

¶5As aforesaid, any attempt to do so would inevitably upset the ratio of reservation of seats for women in the other Electoral Divisions where the election process is complete. In other words, accepting the Petitioners' prayer in the writ petition at this stage would result in creating an imbalance in that ratio, which will be in violation of the letter and spirit of the law. For that reason, we decline to interfere in this petition and leave it open to the Petitioners to pursue any other remedy as may be permissible by law. The same will have to be decided in accordance with law. We make it clear that in the peculiar facts of the case on hand, we do not intend to express any view on the correctness of the issue canvassed before us by either side and we leave all questions open…"

11.

Keeping in view the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, we decline to interfere in this petition. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy as may be permissible to him under law, which will have to be decided in accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any view on the correctness of the stand taken by the respective parties and all questions are left open.

¶12Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶13All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUDHIR SINGH) (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE JUDGE February 21, 2024 gurpreet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23273-2022 (O&M) Date of decision :21.02.2024 KEHAR SINGH RANA …Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.