BHOLA CHAKRAVARTI Vs. STATE OF M. P.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF M. P.
Click here to view full judgement.
Vijay Kumar Shukla,J. -
(1.) Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and the same are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts adumbrated in WP-20191-2020 are taken note of. In these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the final notification dated 10-12-2020 and other orders contained in Annexure-P/1, dated 12-11-2020; Annexure-P/2, dated 23-10-2020; and Annexure-P/7 & Annexure-P/8, dated 26-11-2020, i.e. consequential orders issued by the respondents No.2 and 3.
(3.) A challenge has been made to the aforesaid notification and orders, on the ground that the same have been issued in violation of the provisions of M.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1994"]. The following grounds have been raised in the instant writ petitions :
"(a) That, lots were not drawn as per the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Wards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Women) Rules, 1994.
(b) That, final notification dated 10-12-2020 (Annexure-P/9), is in clear violation of Rule 3(7) of the Rules 1994 inasmuch as reservation for women exceeds 50%.
(c) That, none of the objections of the petitioners were considered at the stage of Rule 5 of the Rules and all the objections have been rejected vaguely, summarily and without any rhyme and reasons.
(d) Rotation policy is not applicable to the General Category persons, as is clear from Section 11(2) and (4) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.