D. L. MEHTA, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have prayed that the writ petition may finally be disposed of at the admission stage. The prayer is accepted.
(2.) THE State Government purporting to Act under s. 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, (No. 38 of 1959) for short 'the Act' herein refixed the number of seats for Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar as 40 vide notification dated September 27, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra Extra-ordinary Part VI (Ka) and out of the total 40 seats, 33 seats were declared as general seats and 7 seats were reserved for scheduled caste. THEreafter, by notification dated October 14, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra Part VI (ka), the State Government under s. 4 of the Act extended the territorial limits of the Ganganagar Municipal Council. After extension of the territorial limits of Ganganagar Municipality, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar submitted proposals to the State Govt. for fresh delimitation of wards of Ganganagar Municipality vide letter dated October 28, 1982. THE State Government vide Notification dated November 5, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra has approved the proposals for delimitation of 40 wards of the Municipality. After considering the objections against the daft proposals, the State Govt. has published an order (Ex. 1) under s. 14 (1) of the Act in Rajasthan Gazette dated December 4, 1982 Part VI (ka ). This order defines the area of each of the 40 wards of the Municipality and denotes the wards which have been reserved for scheduled caste candidates. After publication of the order (Ex. 1), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srigangangar issued a notice (Ex. 2) dated January 3, 1983 that voters list of the Ganganagar Municipality has been kept in the office of the Municipal Council, Ganganagar as well as in his office. Objections, proposals for the correction in the voters list were invited by January 18, 1983. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner has filed Schedule- I showing the total population in each ward of the Ganganagar Municipality as well as the population of the members of the Schedule Caste in each ward and Schedule-II showing the total number of votes in each ward of the Ganganagar Municipality. On behalf of the State, the reply has been filed and the figures shown in Schedule I and Schedule II have been accepted as correct. On behalf of the Municipal Council also, reply has been filed and the figures given in Schedules I and II were not controverted. I have heard Mr. B. L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. P. Dave, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. B. R. Arora for non-petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the 1981 Census Report, the total population for the purpose of delimitation of the wards, is 1,26,038; out of that the total population of the members of the scheduled caste has not adopted as 22, 782 and that the total population of the members of the schedule tribes has been adopted as 666. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide order published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated October 14,1982, the Municipal limits of the Municipal Council, Ganganagar were considerably extended that on account of this extension of limits, the general population increased in greater proportion than the scheduled caste population and the ratio between the two populations were consequently altered and that it was, therefore, necessary for the Government to refix the number of reserved seats on the basis of the altered ratio of the General and scheduled caste populations. He has also submitted that under s. 9 (2) of the Act, the number of reserved seats must bear the same proportion to the total number of the seats which scheduled caste population bears to the general population. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the vires of s. 9 (2) of the Act. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed that a direction or order be issued quashing delimitation of the ward made by the Government vide order (Ex. 1) dated December 4, 1982 and that Ss. 9 (2) and 14 (1) (b) of the Act be declared as void. Mr. R. P. Dave, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has invited my attention to para 15 of the reply and has submitted that as per s. 13 (2) of the Act, the representation of each ward should, as far as possible, be in the same proportion as the total number of seats for the Municipality bear to its population; that the Secretary to the Government Election Department, Jaipur had by letter No. F. 2 (2) (1) M/elec/3509/82 dated September, 1982 issued instructions that in order to ensure compactness of the wards, the population in each of the ward could be 10% less or 10% more than the average population figure. He has further submitted that the average population per ward is 3151. In view of the aforesaid direction of the Government, the population in a ward could range between 2836 persons to 3466 persons. According to the learned Deputy Government Advocate out of the 40 wards, there are only 4 wards in which the population is more than 10% over the average population but in each of the case, as will be clear from the below mentioned figures, the divergency is negligible: Ward No. Total Pop. 10% Above the average Population % Above the average Population + 10 % figure. 6. 3472 10. 18% 0. 17% 10. 3508 11. 32% 1. 21% 16. 3510 11. 39% 1. 26% 33. 3472 10. 18% 0. 17% Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate further submits that similarly out of these 40 wards, there are only two wards in which more than 10% below the average population figure is and it will be clear from the figures below mentioned, the deviation is negligible. Ward No. Total Pop. Below % the average population % Below the average Population less 10 %figure. 13. 2711 13. 96 4. 4 40. 2606 17. 29 8. 11 Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submits that the delimitation is not against the provisions of s. 13 (2) of the Act and the deviation from the average population figures is negligible and is Justifiable in view of the expression "as far as possible" used in s. 13 (2) of the Act.
(3.) THE State Government vide Ex. R. 1 has issued the Circular dated September 27, 1982, the abstract of which is as follows: "before preparing the ward proposals, it will be necessary to work out the average population per seat and shown, in performa 'b' For example in a Municipality where the population is 10,000 and 10 seats the average population per ward will be 1000. You may go upto 900 i. e. 10% less on the lower side and upto 1100 i. e. 10% above on the higher side in order to ensure compactness of the ward. " By addition of the area, the population has been increased by 2346, the reference has been given in Ex. R. 2. Out of this population, 29% is the population of the scheduled caste. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities have committed a mistake even in ascertaining the population of the extended area which is evident from Ex. R. 2 read with Ex. R. 4. He has further submitted that from the perusal of Ex. R. 4, the notification dated October 14, 1982, it is clear that on the western side, the extended area includes Chak No 6-Z and Murabbas No. 100, 110, 119, 125, 135 and Chak No. 6-ZA etc. and that from the perusal of Ex. R. 2 it is further clear that while considering the increased population, the extended area referred to in Ex. R. 4 relating to Chak No. 6-Z and others have not been considered at all and no figures have been collected for the purpose of delimitation of the wards. Learned counsel for the respondents could not give any satisfactorily explanation about the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not on record that what is the population of the area of Chak No. 6-Z and 6-ZA. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the vires of s. 9 (2) of the Act which is as under: "9 (2 ). In so fixing the total number of seats for a board, the State Government shall specify the number respectively of general seats and of seats reserved for members of the scheduled castes or for members of the scheduled tribes or for both as the State Government may in each case determine. " The persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are downtrodden persons and they have been exploited by the haves. Every citizen has a equal right to develop and the right should be effected on the persons who are downtrodden belonging to the scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. Special reservation has been provided in the Constitution and in the light of the said reservation, if the State Govt. provides the reservation, there is nothing wrong in it and I do not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the vires of s. 9 (2) of the Act. I also do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the vires of s. 14 of the Act. ;