Thakram Bala Lanke v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 911-wp-8036-2020.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8036 OF 2020 Thakram Bala Lanke ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ....

Mr. A. G. Ambetkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A. B. Chate, AGP for the State Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....

CORAM :S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 15th DECEMBER, 2020 PER COURT :- 1.

Mr. Ambetkar, learned counsel submits that the reservation made for S.T. woman for ward No.5 is not in consonance under Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat (Number of Members, Division in wards and Reservation of Seats) Rule, 1966. According to the learned counsel, the reservation of S.T. woman is not in consonance with the population in ward No.5. The said reservation ought to be in ward No.1. The learned counsel further submits that there is large population of S.T. woman in ward No.1. The said objection has not been considered.

2 911-wp-8036-2020.doc 2.

The petitioner has not placed on record the number of the population of the S. T. persons in ward No.5 and ward No.1. 3.

Mr. Kadethankar, learned counsel for the State Election Commission, on instructions submits that ward No.5 has population of 190 S.T. persons, whereas in ward No.1 the population of S.T. is only 19 persons. Today, the election programme is declared. 4.

In light of above facts, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE SMS