- (1.) The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 20.04.2012 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) under Sections 7-A and 5(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), whereby elections for Municipal Corporations Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana and Patiala are scheduled to be held in the 2nd week of June, 2012 and the wards reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste Women, women (General Category) and Backward Classes have not been properly rotated. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid notifications on the ground that while issuing the same, the State Government has not rotated the Wards as required under Section 6 of the Act and Article 243T of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the reservation of the Wards and their rotation is mandatory and since the Wards have not been rotated, therefore, the notification (Annexure P-2) is legally not maintainable. It has been further contended that some of the Wards, which were reserved for the elections held in the year 2007, have again been reserved for the instant elections to be held in the year 2012.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that in the present case, notification under Section 7-A has been issued prior to issuance of notification under Section 5(3) of the Act, which is against the norms; before the initiation of the election process, the delimitation of Wards is to be done as per the Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporation Order 1995 and thereafter, notification under Section 5(3) of the Act is required to be issued for declaring that election is to be conducted for how many seats and how many Wards are to be reserved. Thereafter, finally, notification under Section 7A of the Act is required to be issued for declaring the date of the election.
(3.) Heard. Section 6 of the Act has been incorporated keeping in view the Article 243T of the Constitution of India. In case titled as Inderjit v. State of Punjab, LPA No. 1294 of 2010 (decided on 15.02.2012), a Division Bench of this Court has held that Article 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Act are to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in a Municipality. Such reservation was found to be mandatory, but as to which seats are to be reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and directory. It has been further held as under:- As mentioned above, the intention of Article 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Act is to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backwards Classes in a Municipality. As to which seats are reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and is directory. Therefore, while rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude. The State has to be given play in knee joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the process of notification for reserving wards. The division Bench of this Court in Baldev Raj v. State of Punjab, 2009 1 ILR(P&H) 355, has observed that only right of a citizen in the matter of election is to exercise franchise according to his free will and choice. This right of the appellant/petitioners remains intact irrespective of the fact that the ward in question has been reserved or de-reserved. Therefore, we do not find that any prejudice has been suffered by the appellant/petitioners by reserving Ward No. 11 for backward class candidates.;